Chetan Nayak

So there are all kinds of lessons that we have ended up learning over the last 20 years, and I'm sure we'll learn more as we go forward.

So there are all kinds of lessons that we have ended up learning over the last 20 years, and I'm sure we'll learn more as we go forward.

It's really interesting because as these technologies develop, I think usually, or if I look historically at examples, the scientists who built the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project were very aware of the ethical concerns and were some of the earliest people to think about the ethics of nuclear disarmament, for instance, or strategies thereof.

It's really interesting because as these technologies develop, I think usually, or if I look historically at examples, the scientists who built the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project were very aware of the ethical concerns and were some of the earliest people to think about the ethics of nuclear disarmament, for instance, or strategies thereof.

And you can see AI researchers, even five to 10 years ago, were thinking very hard about the ethical issues. That's very much true in quantum computing as well.

And you can see AI researchers, even five to 10 years ago, were thinking very hard about the ethical issues. That's very much true in quantum computing as well.

In fact, it turns out that one of the things that really caused a big uptick in interest in quantum computing was Peter Shor's discovery of the algorithm that's named after him, Shor's algorithm, in which he showed that quantum computers could break the most popular crypto system that we currently use if the computer were large enough, a large enough scale and stable enough.

In fact, it turns out that one of the things that really caused a big uptick in interest in quantum computing was Peter Shor's discovery of the algorithm that's named after him, Shor's algorithm, in which he showed that quantum computers could break the most popular crypto system that we currently use if the computer were large enough, a large enough scale and stable enough.

That actually took quantum computing, made it very interesting to people other than scientists. you know, and engineers. But what's interesting is that quantum physicists had also been thinking about very safe encryption methods and very safe ways of exchanging messages, also by taking advantage of quantum mechanics, what's sometimes called quantum communication, and

That actually took quantum computing, made it very interesting to people other than scientists. you know, and engineers. But what's interesting is that quantum physicists had also been thinking about very safe encryption methods and very safe ways of exchanging messages, also by taking advantage of quantum mechanics, what's sometimes called quantum communication, and

for at least as long, if not longer. So I think one of the really good things is that we have gotten out ahead of this in terms of cryptography. The National Institutes of Standards and Technology has already gone through a process of vetting different, what are called post-quantum cryptography or crypto systems that are safe to quantum attacks, standardized around a number of them.

for at least as long, if not longer. So I think one of the really good things is that we have gotten out ahead of this in terms of cryptography. The National Institutes of Standards and Technology has already gone through a process of vetting different, what are called post-quantum cryptography or crypto systems that are safe to quantum attacks, standardized around a number of them.

And it will be a journey. It's not going to happen overnight to replace our current systems with ones that are safe to quantum attacks. But the good thing is we have already started that journey.

And it will be a journey. It's not going to happen overnight to replace our current systems with ones that are safe to quantum attacks. But the good thing is we have already started that journey.

Well, first of all, I think skepticism is healthy and normal in science. Scientists aren't a monolith. They don't all circle the wagons and all say the same thing. My experience is that it's always the opposite, that any new result is met with a lot of questions. Healthy skepticism, especially when you do something that's not incremental, that's a big leap.

Well, first of all, I think skepticism is healthy and normal in science. Scientists aren't a monolith. They don't all circle the wagons and all say the same thing. My experience is that it's always the opposite, that any new result is met with a lot of questions. Healthy skepticism, especially when you do something that's not incremental, that's a big leap.

There's going to be skepticism and questions. We did just publish a paper in Nature, as you mentioned, presenting some of our results. That's a peer-reviewed journal that in turn built on work. So I think this is kind of a natural part of science. We feel really good about our results.

There's going to be skepticism and questions. We did just publish a paper in Nature, as you mentioned, presenting some of our results. That's a peer-reviewed journal that in turn built on work. So I think this is kind of a natural part of science. We feel really good about our results.

We have, of course, shared a lot more with DARPA because of the ability to, under a nondisclosure agreement, work with the U.S. government on them actually coming into our labs and measuring some of our devices and

We have, of course, shared a lot more with DARPA because of the ability to, under a nondisclosure agreement, work with the U.S. government on them actually coming into our labs and measuring some of our devices and