A heated discussion has erupted in quantum computing as Amazon executives openly question the validity of Microsoft's recent claims of a major breakthrough. Internal communications and expert opinions reveal significant skepticism regarding Microsoft's new quantum processor, Majorana 1, and its purported revolutionary capabilities. This clash highlights the intense competition and differing perspectives within the race to achieve practical quantum computing.
Shortly after Microsoft unveiled its Majorana 1 chip, claiming it could dramatically improve data storage and complex calculations, Simone Severini, Amazon's head of quantum technologies, sent an email to CEO Andy Jassy expressing his doubts. Severini pointed out that Microsoft's scientific paper, published in Nature, did not provide concrete evidence of the claimed advancements. Instead, he argued, the paper merely suggested the potential for future experiments. He further emphasized Microsoft's history of retracted papers and scientific misconduct in the quantum computing domain, which added to his skepticism. "This seems to be a meaningful technical advancement, but it's far different from the breakthrough being portrayed in the media coverage," Severini stated. He also questioned the practical benefits of the "topological qubits" used in Microsoft's architecture.
Internal Slack messages among Amazon employees revealed even more pronounced criticism. Oskar Painter, Amazon's head of quantum hardware, who recently announced Amazon Web Services' (AWS) own quantum computing chip, "Ocelot," called for a "push back on BS statements like S. Nadella's," referring to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Painter expressed greater confidence in the quantum computing efforts of Google and IBM, while labeling Microsoft's approach as "next level (in BS and hype)." These internal communications suggest a deep-seated skepticism within Amazon regarding Microsoft's claims.
Outside of Amazon, industry experts have also voiced concerns about the hype surrounding quantum computing advancements. Arka Majumdar, a computer engineering professor at the University of Washington, acknowledged Microsoft's technical achievements but deemed them "insignificant" compared to what is needed for practical quantum computing. He criticized Microsoft's claims as "sensational" and "overhyped." Scott Aaronson, a renowned quantum computing researcher, noted that Microsoft's claim of creating a topological qubit has not been validated by peer review.
In response to the criticism, a Microsoft spokesperson defended the company's research and emphasized its commitment to open publication and scientific discourse. The spokesperson stated that the Nature paper was published a year after its submission, and the company has made "tremendous progress" in that time. They also stated that the company plans to share additional data "in the coming weeks and months." "Discourse and skepticism are all part of the scientific process," the spokesperson said. "That is why we are dedicated to the continued open publication of our research, so that everyone can build on what others have discovered and learned."
The clash between Amazon and Microsoft highlights the competitive nature of the quantum computing race. While Microsoft maintains that utility-scale quantum computers are imminent, Amazon anticipates a longer timeline for mainstream adoption. The skepticism expressed by Amazon executives and industry experts underscores the challenges and uncertainties that remain in realizing the full potential of quantum computing. As both companies continue to invest heavily in quantum research and development, the scientific community will closely monitor their progress and evaluate the validity of their claims. The coming months and years will be crucial in determining who will ultimately emerge as the leader in this transformative technology.