 Well, I should urge you all to take your seats. I should congratulate you for getting to this session after what for many of us has been a lot of late nights, a lot of chatting, a lot of networking, and probably too much drinking. So well done for being here on this beautiful morning. And I should start with a confession, which is that this has been a session that I've been looking forward to most all week, which might sound surprising because those of you know me, my name's Julian Tett, I'm chair of the editorial board for the Financial Times in the US. You may know me if you do know me as a financial journalist because that's what I spend most of my career doing. But there's two reasons why I'm so fascinated by this and I've been looking forward to this so much. Firstly, because as it happens, I have a PhD in cultural anthropology and I've spent much of my last few years as a sideline looking at the need to blend computing and social science. I actually wrote a book about this last year and I think there are some really interesting questions about what can or cannot be learned from other areas of technology where things have gone wrong in the past and applied to quantum computing. Secondly, I also believe that one of the joys of Davos, particularly the in-person version of Davos is that you can collide with the unexpected and learn about things you may not know. And right now, quantum computing is one of those areas where, frankly, most of us who are not scientists need to collide with this and embrace our understanding of this because it could potentially be very important. I say could because the promise around quantum computing is remarkable. In some ways, the perils around it aren't terrifying as well. However, for most of us, it's very hard right now to work out what is hype, what is real, how it affects all of us in different fields, what people, and by people I mean ordinary non-scientists, executives and regulators could or should be doing this and how quickly it's actually gonna hit us all down the tracks. So we're gonna try and tease out some of these key questions. We have a terrific panel of essentially two scientists turn as entrepreneurs who are at the forefront of this revolution and trying to take this bold idea and turn it into a tangible, not just product, but business plan and raise money from investors. Some of you in the room might be indeed the money bags about to jump in in this field. And we also have a regulator who's trying to oversee how this develops. The regulator is Reiki Haiman, who's co-founder and director of ecosystem development Quantum Delta in Netherlands, which probably doesn't mean anything to you, but the Netherlands has been at the forefront of attempts to create an innovative regulatory structure around this. We have Jack Hidory, who's at the far, my far left, your right, who's chief executive officer of Sandbox, AQUSA, which is basically trying to take the ideas of Quantum and apply them to some real world uses even now in a form of Quantum. He'll tell us what that means in a moment, previously a neuroscientist and physicist. And Jeremy O'Brien, who is previously a physics professor, who's created the company Psi Quantum in Silicon Valley, which is also at the forefront of those trying to turn this idea into a tangible, practical plan. But I'd like to start with you, Jeremy. You were a physics professor for many years. I'd like to imagine that you are addressing a room full of English literature students who know nothing about this and give us a three-minute explanation of what on Earth Quantum computing is and why on Earth anyone here should actually care about it. Sure, so I think the reason that you should care about it is because I believe, as do many others, that Quantum computing is destined to be the most profoundly world-changing technology that humans have yet uncovered. So for that reason, I think you should definitely pay attention. It's going to transform, you know, our live society and economy in incredibly profound ways. And the reason for that is because it takes problems that are otherwise forever impossible and makes them possible. And those problems span pretty much every industry that we have today. And that's a pretty well unprecedented dynamic that you can expect to happen there because if you're taking problems of extremely high value that have been impossible to solve and will be forever impossible to solve until we have Quantum computing, then you're going to have a profound disruption in a majority of industries and that will affect our planet. And I would contend in predominantly positive ways. So you mentioned in your introduction the prospect for different applications. And I think in climate, in healthcare and in energy, we stand as humanity to benefit massively from this technology. Right, well, I'm going to come back and talk about the use cases in more detail and the risks as well. But I mean, even by the standards of, you know, the KBDP Silicon Valley hype, saying that you think this is going to be the most profound technological shift for many decades is remarkable. Do you think this is potentially even more significant than the launch of artificial intelligence? Yes, I do. And as you said, you know, I've been in this business for a long time, 25 years ago, 27 years ago, I read about the prospect for Quantum computing to bring about a revolution comparable to agricultural, industrial, digital revolutions. And I think that is really true. And I can explain a little bit why I believe that and why plenty of others believe that. Okay, give us your elevator pitch, which you probably practiced with a whole bunch of venture capitalists a thousand times already. If not your own mother. Yeah, well... Okay, and you've got like two minutes. Well, I'll pick just one application and that's chemistry. And my conviction is that we can't do chemistry until we have a quantum computer. Now that's deliberately provocative and it's also deliberately true in the sense that if you cannot simulate the building blocks of the world that you find around you or the world that you wanna build as we cannot with chemistry, then what are you really doing? It's the equivalent of trying to do advanced engineering and technology without the aid of a conventional computer. And if you need some proof that we are at an extremely primitive stage with chemistry, you just need to look at the natural world around you life over billions of years that's used exactly the same tool set that we have. They got the same chemistry set that we got and over billions of years has evolved to be able to perform miracles, like turning sunlight into energy, turning water and nitrogen into ammonia to fertilize plants, reproduction and so on. And the task for us is extremely challenging on a conventional computer because the problem grows exponentially. So large instances of chemistry are forever beyond reach of any conventional computer that we can ever build. Okay, chemistry, it's a subject from school. It underpins everything that humans do, everything whether it's a molecule in our body, it's a material that we wanna deploy to tackle climate change or healthcare. You name it, we need that chemical explanation. I believe that we're gonna look back on our pre-quantum computing world and wonder how on earth did we survive, nevermind sustain a population of near on 10 billion people with those primitive caveman tools that we were using back then. Okay, so our iPhones are primitive caveman tools. Try telling my teens that. But I'd like to turn to Jack. I mean, one of the things everyone says, this sounds extraordinary and amazing. You're taking in the idea of quantum physics and applying to computing. You're gonna get superpowers with computing. It all sounds very, very star trek. And it's probably like five, 10 years away. But you say that you're already deploying some version of this right now. Can you tell us what you're actually doing? Again, if you can keep it to two or three minutes and make it intelligible for the non-scientist, you get a brownie point. Sure. Usually when we talk about quantum, we have champagne or wine in the room because it's much easier when people have been drinking to talk about quantum. I thought Silicon Valley had psychedelics. We'll do our best, we'll do our best, we'll do our best here. The first thing to say is that, building what Jeremy said, is that beyond just quantum computing, there's other quantum technologies that are here and now that we also need to bring into this conversation. So we think about quantum. Quantum computing is a core bedrock, but we also have, for example, quantum sensing. And in quantum sensing, we can build diamonds, diamonds that instead of just being made a pure carbon, we dope in some nitrogen. We make them slightly different. We grow them from scratch in a facility. These are not from the ground. And we can use these diamonds as very sensitive magnetometers. And what can we do with these? We can actually detect, for example, the very faint magnetic signal of your heart. Everyone here, I'm sure, has had an ECG, electrocardiography, but now we can do MCG, magnetocardiography. And one of the reasons why cardiovascular disease continues to be one of the top killers in the world, here in Europe, in the US, around the world, is that we don't have good enough diagnostic devices. But going into the magnetic realm, using quantum diamonds, using quantum sensing, we can now start to do that. Another application that we can do again in the near term is navigation around the world without GPS. Right now, Russia is blocking and jamming the signal of GPS over Ukraine to frustrate the Ukrainians. But using the orthopedic magnetic field, we can actually navigate. Birds do that. Whales do that. We, humans, can now do that. So quantum sensors are, we have a device right now in clinical trials so we can do these things in the very near term. We don't need millions and millions of qubits. When it comes to quantum computing, it's a critical, fundamental technology. We are the first generation of humans that will not only have wonderful activity in the bits world, but also now in the world of atoms. And just building on what Jeremy said, it's critical to not just the chemistry also of the body, but also, for example, material science for clean tech. If we want to have better batteries for electric vehicles, better batteries to store renewable energy, we need to simulate these kinds of molecules and atoms in using the quantum equations. And this is why this is a fundamental shift in how we do computing. So just to give a sense for the audience, are you actually using it right now in products? Can you pull out of your pocket or out of your computer or cyberspace a product and say, here we are, this is being used with quantum computing and quantum principles? Because I think many people are confused about this. Sure. I know that Jeremy is talking about sort of, you know, products and ideas that are probably some time away yet. But you know, is there anything tangible right now? Yeah, with quantum sensing, we have built devices now here now. They're in the hospital right now in clinical trials. So quantum sensors are very near term. We don't need millions of qubits. We don't need error correction. We can build those today. And one hope of this panel is to broaden the conversation about quantum from just quantum computing, fundamental, but also now include many other quantum technologies. If you've been in an MRI machine, you've been in a quantum sensor. MRIs were built by physicists using quantum principles. That's a previous generation quantum sensor. Very large, cryogenic, has to be cooled down to minus 200 and colder. But now we can have room temperature quantum sensors. So this is very much Jillian in the next few years, very much here now. We have built these devices. They're in hospitals, in clinical trial. It's things that we will use and will impact all of our lives in the very, very near term. Before I turn to Freika, I just want to quickly ask Jeremy, you know, when do you imagine your products, your very bold promises are actually going to materialize? I mean, you're talking about them all sort of pure, almost higher version of this, aren't you? Yeah, well, maybe I can clarify. I'd like to narrow the discussion, of course. Jack would like to broaden the discussion. But yeah, we have quantum technologies of which, you know, quantum computing, I think is the holy grail. And then we also have quantum sensing and quantum communication, as Jack is describing. And I would go further than the MRI and describe a fridge magnet as a quantum technology if I was pressed. So I don't want to talk about, you know, I want us to talk about, but per your question, I'd like to just focus on quantum computing, which is distinct, but Jack is absolutely correct. There are a multitude of quantum technologies. Quantum computing requires, as far as anyone knows, that million qubit regime that Jack has alluded to. And that's extremely challenging, as you can imagine. So it's not right here right now? It is not here right now. Today the world of quantum computing has around 100 qubits. Right. And there has been a lot of hope over the last five or six years that people could find something useful to do with around 100 to 1,000 qubits. That has not so far panned out. It looks unlikely that it will pan out. And that's the source of a lot of confusion out there in the world, is that many people are of the belief that we have it now or that it's tomorrow because we have 100 qubits and with 100 qubits we could be able to do something useful. So far not. The million qubit regime, it's been my personal conviction for more than 20 years that we will need to leverage the semiconductor industry in the 50 years and trillion dollars that went into that industry in order to deliver that technology. And that's what we are doing. And that's why I believe that we're in a regime where well within this decade we're gonna be deploying this technology. Okay, so we already have versions of this that are not computing in the real world that Jack is developing in medicine and things like that. But the computing version, which is the one that everyone gets excited or terrified by is within the decade. So that's quite close by world economic foreign standards. Can I, before I turn to Frieke, very quickly I wanna ask a question that most people ask up front in relation to quantum computing. And it's often the only reason people have heard about this is that if we get these quantum computers within the next decade, will that smash apart the entire current system of encryption in the current world? That's what everyone really wants to know right now. And will the whole promise behind Bitcoin and DeFi collapse as a result? You each have a minute to answer that. Now I'm gonna get Frieke. So I'll give you bad news and good news. The bad news is, yes, quantum computers break the RSA and ECC encryption standards that we all use today. So RSA has had a good run. 1978 till today, 40 plus years, pretty good run for a tech standard. I think we'd all agree. But we now have to transition from RSA, the current standard to the post-RSA quantum safe. And here's the good news, Gilliam, I wanna share. Which is that the world bodies, the countries, about 40 countries, got together about six years ago, recognizing this issue, came together in an open process with academics, industry partners, and governments and said we've got to find a set of standards that are quantum safe. And this past January, just a few months ago, they completed the core of their work. That's why this panel today is so timely because just in three weeks from today, we'll get the first two of those standards coming out of these government bodies. These are the quantum safe protocols that are what we can use for e-commerce, for encryption, for re-encrypting all of the patient data that we have in hospitals, for re-encrypting all the intellectual property that we have, and also for starting to use in insecure communication as well. So bad news is, yes, we have to now discard RSA and all the stuff that we were using before, and particularly because of SNDL, store now, decrypt later. We have to move now, even though the quantum computers are not here yet, we have to move now because the adversaries are exfiltrating our information, even though it's encrypted, they're storing it on their servers to decrypt it in a few years when they have the computing capability. That's the urgency of why the governments of the world are issuing these standards today. Well, there's nothing like terror to force collaboration. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Freaker, how terrified are you? How much of a risk is the idea that basically all of our encryption devices that are working on our computers and phones, all of that's about to collapse? How much does that scare you? Well, I'm not scared because I think the positive applications of this new technology are way, way up against this risk. And I mean, yes, it's true. We have to get to the new standard of encryption, but it's like an upgrade. We can do that. We've done it before and the standards are there. We're getting prepared. We just need to do it. And we need to focus on the positive applications because it's amazing what this new technology can do for sensing, well, for health, everything that has been mentioned. And I think it's important to discuss this with the broader public because what we've seen is that a technology like this, and you see it also in your reaction, that it can scare people off, right? It's like, oh, and then people say, oh, Einstein thought it was spooky action at a distance, teleportation, and it has this sort of mythological feel around it. And I think we should get over that because this thing is also very complicated and we use it and there's lots of good to do with it. And yeah, we should overcome that. For instance, also, if you look at what happened with the pandemic and vaccines, a lot of people didn't want to take the vaccines whereas it was a great solution for the problem we had. And that's why we, at this point already, although quantum computing maybe years away before it really gets into the real world, we would already start discussions and engage also other people than just the physicists. Well, Alex Karp, the CEO of Palantir, made a very interesting remark in his IPO documents a couple of years ago, which I wrote about in my book at some length, which is basically society has effectively, when it comes to AI, outsourced the control of this technology to what he called a small group of technologists operating in a far-flung region that no one else pays attention to, i.e. Silicon Valley, not quite, but anyway. But basically it's been outsourced to a bunch of geeks and nerds who speak the computing equivalent of Latin in their medieval Catholic church, which everyone else kind of goes, we don't understand, help. It gives them enormous power. Do you have any confidence that you as a regulator can actually keep up with what those technical priests are doing and challenge them, oversee them and actually try and communicate to people about what's happening? Yeah, well I think this is exactly the point and I totally agree with that statement that is made and that's why we're here at the World Economic Forum, to get public and private partners together to work on this together. And I think with quantum computing, we're in time. With AI, we were too late. With all the social things, we were too late. Here we have a shot of doing that and that's why I think it's good news that government agencies, the European Commission, et cetera, already have an eye on this technology and that we broaden exactly what you say, the group of people working on it because how much I like Jeremy and Jack, there's also other things to think about. It's about ethics, it's about legal issues, it's about how to embrace society as a whole. And in the Netherlands, we have this initiative, the 600 million ecosystem initiative and 20 million out of that is aimed for a center for quantum and society where we discuss all these topics together and actually Jeremy and I are working together in this initiative climate that was announced this morning also to work on use cases for the climate. Right, I mean, Jeremy, I'm curious with you because you're doing this obviously as a business. Are you finding that investors are very excited about this idea and want to back it? Which idea, sorry? About the quantum computing idea and its applications to say climate change. Absolutely, yeah, I mean, so just on the topic, I've been working for 25 plus years on quantum computing and I'm doing that not because I think it's fun doing a startup and making a pile of money, I'm doing it because I think the world really needs this technology and needs it urgently and most urgently for climate, followed quickly by healthcare and energy. And sure, investors are, I think we humans and I hope everyone at this event is aware that we need to move trillions of dollars around the world to tackle this problem and we need to do it urgently starting yesterday and it's clear that quantum computing is the most powerful tool that you could hope to have in your toolkit when you're tackling climate change and I wanna be absolutely clear on this as well that I don't want anyone to walk out of this room or to listen to this online and get the impression that we can relax, quantum computing's gonna ride to our rescue and solve climate change. Absolutely not. You need to do everything in your power as an individual and in your organization to tackle this problem by any mechanism that you have starting yesterday and then in addition, we will build a quantum computer as quickly as possible and we will partner with you on applications like direct air capture, like green hydrogen, solar, electric batteries, potentially even green cement and so on. We'll partner with you on doing that but we humans need to band together and by the way, it should be a whole lot of fun, right? We're good at tackling grand challenges and working together to do that. That's why we're here actually as humans so we need to get on with that very quickly but in the process, is it lucrative? You bet it's lucrative, right? Like you're unlocking incredible value in that process and there's plenty to go around. It's not a zero sum game. You're creating new possibilities, entirely new markets and so investors to your question are absolutely all over this. Right, well the very fact we've got a packed room this morning on the last morning after the last night of parties indicates the interest in this. I'm gonna turn to the audience for questions in just one minute but I want to ask you very quickly, Jack, well, you tell me what you wanted to say but I also wanted to ask you very quickly if you run into an executive or a venture capitalist or any of your friends who are not scientists that say, or executives, what should I be doing now about this? Other than reading an article you wrote in Nature about 10 days ago, what does it actually mean in terms of practical people? Yeah, first just to pick up on the conversation just now it is very important that we work very closely with governments and regulators. Site Quantum, Sandbox, AQ, all the companies in the space we spend a lot of time right now with government officials. It's very important that we are briefing in terms of the latest technology, particularly right now in terms of this encryption issue, the SNDL, the transition from RSA to post-RSA. We did write the nature paper, I published 10 days ago on this and so we can share that as well but it's very critical we work and partly why we're here in Europe is not just to attend Davos but also to be spending time with the governments here. The other issue I would also kind of point out that all of us on this panel work on is the human capital issue which is absolutely critical. It's very important that we work with the universities. Fredeka has come from Delft. The Delft is one of the centers worldwide in quantum technology but the good news Julian about this technology as opposed to say AI, is that this is already starting as a global phenomenon. UNSW and other major universities in Australia, fantastic expertise. Delft, many universities here in Switzerland, ETH, EPFL, universities in the UK where Jeremy came out of Bristol, Imperial and others in the US and Canada as in other examples. It's a global phenomenon but the challenge is if you add up all the PhD output of all these universities we don't reach 5% of the demand that our companies and our governments need and so the investment that we need public-private partnership in this case because we're doing a part but we also need the government as a partner to invest in the next generation of engineers and scientists to help us make this revolution happen. Right, that's fascinating, by the way I should also say that Jack gave me a copy of his book, Quantum Computing and Applied Approach which I'm sure will make fabulous reading. It's a light read, it's a light read. It's a light home with a gin and tonic, so here we go. Before I ask you, I want to quickly want to ask you the audience to quickly vote by show of hands on a couple of things. How many of you in the room think you actually understand what quantum computing means? Okay, a few. How many of you are scared of it? Okay, how many of you are excited by it? Wow, okay, so that was a very optimistic response. Otherwise, you either just woke up recently because of that question. But anyway, let me turn to the audience for questions. So I do want to create lots of space for questions. Wave your hand at me if you want to ask a question. And I think there should be some microphones. Well, that's coming to me. Right here in the front. Perhaps I can address your question of what should be done now and I think the answer is engage. Engage, right. Well, that's what we're doing. Okay, and by the way, it would as always be courteous but not compulsory to identify yourself briefly and keep it brief as well, please, for questions. Hi, I'm Martin O'Neill from the University of York in the UK. So let me just ask about risks and sort of concerns that you might have. We're obviously in a very difficult geopolitical situation at the moment. How worried are you about what states might do in terms of developing military applications related to quantum computing? How much of a threat is there about kind of military uses that might be very, very dangerous? And what are your biggest fears for those of you who are a great enthusiast about quantum computing or other kinds of quantum tech? What's the largest worries that you have as experts about the development of this technology? Yeah, I'll give you a glimmer answer to that which is that my greatest fear is that- You might want to put your mic a bit closer, yeah. Can you hear me all right? Yeah. My greatest fear is that we get distracted by the risks overly, like we need to take these risks into account, but this is a technology that enables us to, you know, to do wonderful things predominantly, powerful and wonderful things. And I think we've learned some lessons from conventional computing, from the internet, you know, laser, GPS, et cetera. But this is the opposite of a weapon if you see what I mean as a technology. And because, as panelists and Gillian have said, there's this sort of, you know, mystical nature to the technology, I think there's a risk of overdoing it. Jack has already addressed, and I agree completely with him and Frieker, that, you know, we need to address this challenge of decryption, you know, the quantum computing's capacity to decrypt things. This has been known, Jack, said, for six years. Governments have been, you know, the US government gave a directive more than six years ago to move to this so-called post-quantum cryptography, which is just a cryptography that is robust to quantum computing's ability to crack it. That's the number one thing that we need to worry about. And then, you know, more widely, of course, if this is a very powerful technology, the prospects for, you know, geopolitical disruption are profound. And I think, you know, I'm determined, and that's why we're partnering with Frieker and her organization to see that it, you know, be spread as what, you know, the benefits be spread as widely as possible, as quickly as possible. Can I ask what you asked on this point very quickly, and I'm going to ask the question at the front from the lady here. Could this smash apart the crypto world, the Bitcoin world? Well, we just had a panel on that this morning, and what's interesting about blockchain, blockchain, I think, has a lot of potential. There's a lot of value we can build on top of blockchain. Unfortunately, the folks who started blockchain picked two particular encryption standards. Blockchain needs public key encryption. That's what it needs, signatures and encryption to make it work. They chose RSA and ECC, the two encryption standards that quantum breaks. So, the good news is, again, that we now have post-quantum crypto protocols. We can take a measured transition over the next four or five years for blockchain, and we have to work with the blockchain community. Part of what happened here in Davos this week is that the Web3 blockchain community and those of us in the quantum community started to meet, and we're meeting because we need an orderly transition of the underlying building blocks of blockchain itself. We need to move blockchain from RSA, ECC, lots of acronyms, sorry about that, but these are just acronyms that mean the current encryption standard. We need to move it to the quantum safe encryption standards. We have about four or five years to make that happen. We have the time, we have a plan, but we really need the participation, Jillian, of the blockchain community to do that. And we already saw how difficult it is to move from proof of work to proof of stake, which is a critical change to bring down the carbon footprint of blockchain. We now need to restore the pillars and fundamentals of the security of the blockchain by moving it to the post-quantum protocols. Well, as an anthropologist, I would say that the culture dynamic of the blockchain tribe is not exactly famous for complying with organizational requirements and working with regulators, so Frika. Yeah, I would like to go back to Martin a bit. So indeed it's not like nuclear fusion or whatever with that kind of horrific applications. It is more in the realm of classical computing, like high performance computing also very powerful tool and governments are looking at this. So it's not like the Netherlands is putting 600 million, Germany, the US, China. So there's a lot of interest from governments and also working together. Like two weeks ago, we had a meeting in Washington, DC with 12 nations to work together on this as well. So it's on top of the list, but it's not... I mean, it's a new technology. It's coming. We should regulate it. We should govern it. And the only way to do it is to engage and not to be scared. Well, if the governments end up saving the encryption of Bitcoin, that will be ironic indeed. We have a question at the front. I think my question was already answered. It was China. What about China in all these measures? Well, I don't think that question has been answered. Are we scared, those of us who are non-Chinese, that the Chinese may either be ahead of America and other countries? You know, who's actually leaving us? Are the Chinese ahead? And does that create threats for countries that are not China? And of course the argument could be put the other way around as well in terms of countries which are non-American may not welcome America leading on this point. Well, it's a broad technology, as Jack was saying. So it's computing, but there's all kinds of things, sensing, communications, and different kind of technology platforms. And China is a very strong and active player in that field. Also a large national investor. So we should not say, oh, the Western world is ahead or something. So I don't like to use the word race, but everybody is working on this, and we should do our utmost best to bring this to market. Jack and Jeremy, I'd like to ask you about this specifically. Is China ahead of America in this or not? China's focus in a particular area that we in the West are not as focused on, which is quantum coherent communications. They put a lot of it. Panjhan Wei, who leads almost like a Manhattan project, essentially, in China focused on this area. Brilliant physicist, by the way, focused on creating both a terrestrial and satellite based communications network that can carry these kinds of quantum states. The states of superposition, the states of entanglement, Freike mentioned, the spooky action of distance entanglement that Einstein was so obsessed with. This quantum coherent network that China is focused on, it's very much an area that China is more intent on than I would say most of the countries in the West. So I would say that there's a lot of depth of expertise that China has gathered around this. They're spending about 10 to 15 billion U.S. dollars over the next three years on building out this initially national network. They have a satellite in space already called MISIAS, and they intend to go global, according to their own documents, with this communications network. Right, how much is the U.S. spending a lot of interest by comparison? And then I want to ask Jeremy the question. Or maybe you can answer this, Jeremy. Well, right now the U.S. has a public budget of about one to two billion, but as we were all saying before, there's a lot of private investment. In fact, in the past two years, 3.5 billion dollars of investment has happened just in the U.S. alone into quantum companies, companies like CyQuantum and our company and many others. And so that's a good piece of news. We need that investment to get this innovation going. Although again, the human capital, not the financial capital is a rate-limiting factor here. Right, one thing to add on the communication because yes, China is doing a lot, but we are also Europe has this Euro QCI initiative. It's like a three billion initiative to build a European quantum communication infrastructure. And just yesterday, there was a New York Times article of a Delft group having teleportation in three nodes, which is quite amazing actually. Right. Jeremy, is China ahead or behind in the areas that you're looking at? So Freaker and Jack have talked about communication, so quantum communication. And again, in the effort to disambiguate a little bit here, that's a separate quantum technology to quantum computing. And no, China is not ahead in quantum computing, but as you've heard, they're investing heavily and there's a huge activity there. Right, we have a question in the back and then we'll come over here. I think that's a great conversation on China, but I have a number here that says that 18 governments have invested about 25 billion in quantum computing till late last year. I'm sure the number is growing at quantum speed. But the fact is that the relationship between the investment in quantum by governments versus the private sector is going to be a very interesting dynamic. So my question to all of you is that how is that going to play out? And Angelien, to sort of add the dimension to your question, when you say China is ahead, it means the government of China is ahead in computing. When you say US is ahead, it's usually the private sector which is ahead. Even in India, from where I am, there's a lot of investment going on. But the question of investment from the government versus the private sector is a dynamic I'd like to explore with all of you. Right. You know what, I'm actually gonna take, I see several other people wanting to ask questions. So I'm gonna take two or three questions, group them together, and then let people address them at the end. So I think we've got a question there and a question over here. Yes, yeah, I could have many questions. I'm Carlos Torres, I'm the chair of BVDA, a bank based in Spain with global operations. So forget blockchain. What about other infrastructures that might be decrypted like banks, exchanges, or places where other assets are kept? And then when you say human capital, is that for the hardware, the software, and whether the different companies that are developing the hardware, the IBMs, Google, Samsung, whether their version of computing is gonna be interoperable with the others or not. And then when you say it's lucrative, you mean in the very long term, if there is no commercial application now, I gather. Thank you. Okay, there's a question over here, and then I throw, are there any more questions on this side? Yeah, one. Any women want to ask questions, by the way? I mean, I know this is not a field where there's tremendous diversity, so I'm gonna have this question and that question, and then we'll go to the... Thanks very much, Julian. My name's John Diel, and I'm chairman of Unipart Group. Thanks for a brilliant session. This may be a silly question, but when might the applications necessary to run on quantum computers be available to the wider community? When can we all buy one? Keep it in our pockets, okay? Well, that's good, yeah. Hi, sorry, I'm Luisa Gomez-Bravo from PVA as well. My question is more on the emerging market side. So in the past, obviously, as technologies get developed, it tends to create a divide, favoring developed economies, and then it's the emerging economies that come later. So there's a wealth distribution effect. Do you think that's gonna happen now? Again, with quantum computing and quantum technologies, or can we do it in a different way? Well, that's another great question. Frieke, why don't you address the last one? So I know you're very concerned about unequal access, and try and keep each answered pretty brief. Yeah, very concerned. I don't think quantum computing is fundamentally different than AI, so it goes for all the technologies and we should work on that. So there's no answer, there's no solution, no easy solution, but we need to work on that together. Right. Yeah, just to tackle a few of these. First, I think it's one of the wonderful things about quantum is that it's born cloud native. If you look at the past 40 years of computing hardware, it was on premises. You had to buy these large machines, install them in your facility, and then amortize that use over, say, seven, eight years, and then go to the next generation, and that's the history of IBM 360, DeX, Sun, SGI, Dell, Lenovo, so on and so forth. This being cloud native is a really big advantage because we want it meshed together. We want CPU, GPU, and QPU, Quantum Processing Unit. We want them all interacting with each other. These specialized chemistry applications, for example, on Quantum, that's what you run on Quantum, and then interacting with CPU and GPU, so all that is cloud based. So the good news is that right now already, academic students, corporations can get access to very, very primitive quantum computers, but that portends well for the future in terms of access when we get scaled fault tolerant quantum computers. To answer the gentleman from BBVA and the questions from BBVA, absolutely correct. This is not just a blockchain issue. This is fundamental to the entire financial banking system. This is not only data in motion, i.e. payments, transactions, as they're moving through the SWIFT system, through other systems that we have around the world, it's also the data at rest. Under the compliance regimes around the world, banks and others are required to keep the records of their customers for 10 to 20 years. This is why we must move the encryption. We have to re-encrypt all that information into the new standards because of SNDO, because of the Steel Now Decrypt Later attack that is underway right now. So it's fundamental both for the data that we have at banks today, at pharma, at governments, at telcos, and also fundamental to the data in motion in terms of the payments that are moving across our financial networks. Jeremy, do you wanna tell us when we can actually get one of these in our pocket? And also, I'm really curious about this question about the differing models of development between the Chinese state-driven public sector model, if you like, and the American Silicon Valley model, where it wasn't the case in the past where things like NASA ran space, but now we have Elon Musk, and now we have much of the innovation coming out of the private sector. Is that good or bad? It's a bit like asking Turkey not to vote for Christmas, but you know, since you're working for a sector. But tell us how you see the development because you were previously working at a university funded by public money. Indeed. So I'll start with the access. So as Jack highlights, it's cloud native and that bodes well in the sense that, and I'd go even further to say that actually what the world needs is the applications of quantum computing. So for example, that catalyst for direct air capture, for example, gets deployed. It doesn't really matter to the majority of the world how that was developed on a quantum computer, what matters is the applications thereafter, whether that's in climate or healthcare and so on. And to this point of ensuring that the world benefits and that we don't end up with further divides, this is indeed why Freyker and my organizations have partnered on this climate with a queue initiative where we're devoting some of that capacity, a large fraction of that capacity for climate related applications ahead of it becoming available. To the point of public versus private money, we absolutely need to do both. I mean, I hope I'm preaching to the converted when I say that climate and healthcare are big issues, right? Like these are not issues that... I'm a grey person, you know, I don't really believe in black or white as answers to many complex questions and there's no more complex question than climate I would say. And we're gonna need to have everyone doing everything and I think delivering the quantum computer to enable that should absolutely be a joint public-private enterprise. Right, right, well, thank you. Well, it's been a fascinating session. Sadly, we are almost out of time. I must, as I said earlier, one of the joys of Davos is colliding with the unexpected. Colliding with the unexpected in the world of quantum physics has a particularly spooky sense about it. But, you know, I think away sort of three key points. One is that this is indeed a fascinating and very important technology and the fact is not here yet does give us all a chance to get it slightly right or at least do better than we've done with so many of the other technologies in the past and we can learn from history and learn from the development of AI and other areas of innovation. Secondly, I am not quite as optimistic necessarily as you three about the ability of governments to get it right and to work with the private sector and with each other in an intelligent way. I think the implications for the financial sector, which is where I have spent much of my career reporting, are particularly challenging and striking and I don't think most investors have understood this yet at all, least of all in the relation to crypto assets and many other areas of traditional finance. And thirdly, leading out of this, I think my other big conclusion is that we in the media need to do a much better job of getting our heads around it and trying to explain it to the wider world. It's never easy because of this problem, as I said earlier, of financial Latin, technological Latin or all these other areas where a tiny group of geeks control technology which has the ability to affect us all but almost nobody else understands. Almost every crisis in the world in recent years has emerged because of this, whether it's a financial crisis or whether it's COVID, et cetera, et cetera. So there's a tremendous need for translation. I'm certainly committed to trying to do that the best I can. I'm gonna be reading this book on the way back. And I'll just ask on the behalf of journalists everywhere for as many of you who are involved in this field to help us to try to do slightly better than the past. It's a low bar, but we need together to try to do better to get more understanding and scrutiny of what's going on. So thank you all very much indeed for helping us on that. Thank you.