Mind the Quantum Gap: Are Our Ethical Frameworks Ready for the Next Digital Revolution?
Why I think they aren't, and how I think we can avoid being conquered by 'Sqoodles'
Picture this: a civilisation of brilliant engineers who were experts at getting from A to B, who for centuries meticulously built increasingly powerful vehicles: first the horse and cart, then trains, cars, and eventually, supersonic jets. Alongside these inventions they developed comprehensive rulebooks, traffic laws, and safety protocols for each – the ethical frameworks to keep them relatively safe on the roads and in the skies.
Now: imagine that one day in this thriving world, there was a breakthrough in quantum research of some description. Suddenly, this resourceful bunch, let's simply call them the Engineers, invented teleporters. This isn't just a faster jet; it operates on entirely different principles, capable of instantaneous travel, blurring the lines of space and time. The Engineers know it can take them to incredible new destinations and solve problems that were previously impossible. But here's the catch: they haven't written the rulebook for teleportation yet. There aren't any real safety inspections, traffic laws, or even a clear understanding of who is responsible if something goes wrong during a ‘jump’.
The "Quantum Gap" is precisely this: The breath-taking leap in our technological vehicle (quantum computing) has far outpaced our ability to draft the necessary ethical and societal guidelines for its safe and just operation. We have long relied on guiding principles for our existing technologies, but applying those same 'common sense' rules to quantum computing would be like telling a frequent user of a teleporter to remember their turn signals, keep the oil topped up, check your mirror, and watch for pedestrians.
Keep this picture in mind for now, as this sets the stage for some short stories I want to tell aimed at showing clearly my concerns with our transition into quantum computing, breaking down the specific problems I see, and then ultimately proposing some solutions.
Before that however, I think a little reminder on the principles of analogue computing, and a crash course in quantum level computing couldn't hurt anyone.
If it could hurt you: skip it (Scroll down till you see the heading ‘The Engineers’)
The Fundamental Shift into a New Language of Computing: Bits vs. Qubits
Very simply, a traditional computer uses Bits, whereas a quantum computer uses Qubits (quantum bits). This is a key distinction to make right off the bat.
Think of a bit as the tiniest, most fundamental piece of information a classical computer can hold. It's like a single light switch. It can only be in one of two states at any given moment: ON or OFF. Now, let's say that these ON and OFF states are called 1 and 0. This bit can only ever be in one state – either 1 or 0, like the switch being either ON or OFF. This, as I am sure you may have now realised if you are familiar with computing to a moderate degree, is what is called binary code. Every piece of information your classical computer processes—every letter, every pixel, every sound—is ultimately broken down into vast sequences of these 1s and 0s.
To clarify for those who may now want to ask, ‘Is this related to my downloads, as it is measured in Gigabytes (GB)?’ Well yes, and no. Discussing bits and gigabits is like talking about sand and beaches. A bit, as previously discussed, is exactly that—a single 1 or 0. A gigabit (Gb) differs in that it is not a single bit, but a billion of them. When you see internet speeds measured in 'Gigabits per second,' it's referring to the sheer volume of those 1s and 0s moving every second. This contrasts with a Gigabyte (GB), which typically refers to a billion bytes – and since there are eight bits in a byte, a Gigabyte actually represents eight billion bits, commonly used for storage and file sizes.
So, understanding a traditional computer bit as being a light switch which can be either one of two things at any given time (ON/OFF), I want you to now picture a dimmer switch (one of those twisty knobs for increasing and decreasing the strength of your light). Our dimmer switch here is what we are going to call Qubits. Why a dimmer switch? The key distinction lies in the binary, ON/OFF of the flicky switch, and the vast ambiguity in between ON and OFF of the dimmer. This ability of a qubit to be 0, 1, or any value in between simultaneously, until it is measured, is called superposition. A good way to think about Qubits is by using a coin flip analogy: A coin laying in the palm of your hand is either heads or tails. If you flip it into the air, until it lands, that coin is simultaneously heads, tails, and every state of rotation in between. That is a qubit in superposition! (That’s quantum physics, folks).
But there's another, even stranger, property that makes qubits so powerful: entanglement. Imagine two of those special spinning coins (qubits) that become deeply linked, no matter the distance between them. If you observe one and it lands on 'heads,' you instantly know what the other one must be, even if it's light-years away. This profound connection allows entangled qubits to perform incredibly complex calculations and share information instantaneously, creating correlations that are impossible in the classical world.
So what we have outlined so far is that the traditional computer utilises bits to be one thing or another in a sequence, while a quantum computer utilises qubits to simultaneously be in many states at once (superposition) and interact in deeply linked ways (entanglement). But what does this even mean for actual computing?
Simply put, a traditional computer processes information in a step-by-step, chronological sequence. For example, to say 'hello' and then 'bye' in binary, a classical computer would process 01001000 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101111 00100001 (hello), AND THEN process 01100010 01111001 01100101 (bye).
A quantum computer, thanks to superposition and entanglement, could effectively explore all possible outcomes or states at the exact same time. It's not necessarily saying "hello and bye" in a fixed way, but rather processing every possible combination simultaneously to find the solution to a complex problem much, much faster.
This may seem odd and unintuitive, and that's because… it is. Our everyday experience doesn't prepare us for the quantum realm. I am fully aware that you might be scratching your head at this point, perhaps thinking there could be no practical use for something that operates in such a bizarre way, but stay with me here. This counter-intuitive power is precisely why quantum computing holds such transformative potential – and why we need to understand it to prepare ethically.
So now we have a semblance of an idea of the inner workings. Well, we do, but we don't, which is rather amusingly ironic. Before delving into the ethical implications in the real world, it's crucial to outline what a quantum computer will even be used for, as there seems to be some general misunderstanding from what I can tell.
Firstly, let's be absolutely clear: a quantum computer is not something that will replace your Mac, or whatever you have. It will not be used to word process, check your emails, or search ‘why do Substack writers think they know it all’ on Google. Your current everyday computers will remain the main tool for everyday tasks. While quantum computers are typically accessed via the cloud and thus connect to the internet, their purpose isn't general browsing, but highly specialized computation.
Where quantum computers truly come in is when we need systems that can take an unbelievably large amount of information—an amount far beyond what even our most powerful classical supercomputers (often seen used at places like NASA) can process—and articulate an answer from it. These are tasks that are "intractable for classical computers".
For instance, consider factoring very large numbers. This task is so complex for classical computers that it could take thousands, or even millions of years to accomplish. A quantum computer in all its might an glory leveraging its unique capabilities, could potentially perform the same task exponentially faster, in mere minutes or hours. This dramatic difference, described as a "quantum computational advantage," is a crucial milestone in demonstrating their power.
Beyond number factoring, quantum computers are "poised to revolutionize various industries and research fields" where traditional computers simply become insufficient. Key sectors likely to require quantum infrastructure include:
Cybersecurity: Quantum computers could break many of our current encryption methods, necessitating the development of quantum-resistant cryptography. Conversely, they also offer the potential for entirely new, unhackable communication methods.
Pharmaceuticals and Materials Science: Simulating complex molecules and chemical reactions to discover new drugs or design novel materials becomes exponentially faster and more accurate.
Finance: Tasks like portfolio optimization and complex risk analysis can be performed with unprecedented speed and accuracy.
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: Quantum machine learning algorithms "show potential for higher accuracy in multi-class classification tasks" , enabling breakthroughs in pattern recognition and data analysis that integrate with existing AI/ML systems.
So, while your laptop will remain your digital companion for daily life, quantum computers are the specialized heavy-lifters designed to tackle humanity's most daunting computational challenges, pushing the boundaries of what's currently possible.
Quantum computing remains an emerging technology at a pivotal stage of development. Current systems are limited, often termed "noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) systems" , but the field is rapidly advancing with continuous improvements in qubit count, quantum volume, and speed, targeting future "fault-tolerant quantum computing". While still largely research-driven, there's a strong push towards commercialization strategies focused on high-value use cases.
And that, concludes the crash course. With a new or strengthened appreciation for the distinction between classical and quantum computing, in operation and purpose, I can't see any reason to not continue my story of the Engineers any longer. Remembering where we left off, that is, the invention of the teleporter, let me jump straight back in by simply asking several hypothetical questions.
The Engineers
The Black Box Dilemma or, Huxley’s day out: Unseen Failures & Untraceable Harms
What if: One day on the way to the supermarket to get his groceries, an Engineer called Huxley enters his local community teleporter, but is never seen or heard from again? He never came out the other side, and no one knows why, and there is simply, and plainly, no way of knowing how.
The Unforeseen Dilemma or, Orwell’s Shortcut: Reckless Innovation & Intergenerational Injustice
What if: An Engineer called Orwell, attempting a shortcut in transporting a teleporter, puts a teleporter into another teleporter, accidentally triggering a chain reaction. His reckless act causes the teleporter to emit a novel gas into the atmosphere, which then infects every other teleporter it touches. Within hours, the entire planet is engulfed, rendering all teleporters unusable. Scientists then discover this gas could be an incredible star ship fuel, diverting all resources to its production. Yet, a century later, with no star ships launched, the Engineers discover a horrifying truth: the gas has rendered their entire population infertile. Only a quarter of the population remains, steadily dwindling.
The Uncontrolled Emergence Dilemma or, Sqoodle: Loss of Control & Existential Risk
What if: A poodle named Grape chases a squirrel into a teleporter and emerges as a super-intelligent hybrid 'Sqoodle.' This new entity quickly procures and replicates teleporters, creating millions of its kind through unforeseen emergent properties of the technology. Within a generation, the Engineers find themselves captives on their own planet, their roles reduced to serving their intellectually superior Sqoodle overlords, who now rule the Earth.
Connecting the Hypothetical to Our Reality: The Quantum Ethical Quandaries
These aren't just fanciful tales from a distant land of Engineers. Each "what if" scenario, no matter how whimsical, casts a stark light on pressing ethical challenges that are already emerging as quantum computing advances in our world. The unique and powerful features of quantum information processing give rise to distinct ethical consequences that demand our immediate attention.
Let's dissect these allegories and see what quantum reality they reflect:
1. The Black Box Dilemma: Unseen Failures & Untraceable Harms
So, Engineer Huxley is gone. Vanished. There are millions of super practical teleporters all over the world, but one simply swallowed a user without a trace. Is no one now allowed to use them, given the now evident chance of immediately being disappeared into the unknown? If so, will everyone stop? How do you regulate a system whose failures are inexplicable?
The Quantum Parallel: This scenario highlights the critical issue of opacity and lack of explainability in advanced quantum and AI systems. When complex algorithms make decisions or perform operations in ways that are too intricate for humans to fully trace or understand, how do we assign responsibility when things go wrong? This directly connects to concerns about "security" and "biased decision-making" if the inner workings are inscrutable. Structured research into the ethical implications of these complex technologies is often "lacking", leaving us without clear answers on how to diagnose or fix such 'black box' failures.
The Philosophical Mirror: This raises profound questions about accountability and justice in complex systems. How do we apply traditional notions of responsibility when harm arises not from a single, identifiable action, but from the opaque interactions within a vast, interconnected technological structure? Iris Marion Young's "social connection model" of responsibility for structural injustice suggests that all who participate in and benefit from such systems share a forward-looking political responsibility to change them, even when direct blame is impossible to pinpoint.
2. The Catastrophic Unforeseen: Reckless Innovation & Intergenerational Injustice
Orwell’s shortcut, a seemingly minor act of impatience, led to planetary devastation and the potential end of a civilization. What is the real-world quantum equivalent of a single reckless act, or unchecked pursuit of a new advantage, leading to such catastrophic, irreversible, long-term risks? How do we balance potential massive benefits (like a new "starship fuel") against devastating, multi-generational consequences? Who decides when to push innovation versus prioritize irreversible safety?
The Quantum Parallel: This allegory underscores the dangers of unforeseen negative societal impacts and the profound challenges in predicting the long-term consequences of rapidly advancing technologies like quantum computing. It highlights how "Responsible Innovation (RI) approaches struggle to address the societal implications of such complex technologies" , especially when the focus shifts to commercial motivations or immediate scientific breakthroughs without sufficient "anticipatory policy". The scenario's emphasis on future generations suffering the consequences directly relates to the critical concept of intergenerational justice, a known philosophical problem.
The Philosophical Mirror: This scenario calls directly upon Jack Stilgoe's framework for Responsible Innovation, which emphasizes embedding "anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, and responsiveness" into technology development. It asks if we are truly practicing "anticipatory governance"—thinking through risks and ethics before deployment. It also echoes Amartya Sen's emphasis on "development as freedom" , questioning whether technological advancements truly expand freedom if they simultaneously create profound "unfreedoms" for future generations.
3. The Uncontrolled Emergence: Loss of Control & Existential Risk
Poodle Grape's transformation from pet to planetary overlord illustrates a chilling possibility: What if a powerful technology, especially one with emergent properties from replication, spirals out of human control and comes to dominate humanity?! What happens when an AI (or quantum-enhanced AI) becomes "far intellectual superior"!? Who is accountable for such a creation?!
The Quantum Parallel: This scenario taps into the anxieties surrounding uncontrolled AI and unforeseen emergent behaviours from highly complex systems, particularly when integrated with technologies like quantum computing. It directly relates to the broader discussion of "responsible Artificial Intelligence" and the need for human oversight and control in autonomous systems. The rapid, self-replicating nature touches upon concerns of existential risk if advanced systems achieve goals misaligned with human well-being.
The Philosophical Mirror: Virginia Dignum's work on Responsible Artificial Intelligence advocates for "Human-in-the-loop Design" to ensure humans remain in control and for "distributing responsibility across all stakeholders". The rise of the Sqoodles challenges Luciano Floridi's concept of "ontological equality" within the "infosphere", forcing us to consider the moral status of artificial entities and the implications when their "integrity and flourishing" might come at humanity's expense
The Looming Problem: Why Our Current Frameworks Fall Short
The "What if" scenarios, while fantastical, illustrate a chilling truth: our existing ethical frameworks and governance mechanisms are dangerously unprepared for the advent of technologies like quantum computing. The very characteristics that give quantum its transformative power—its complexity, its emergent properties, and its capacity for unprecedented scale—also create "emerging ethical challenges" that "structured research into their ethical implications is lacking".
The problem isn't a lack of good intentions, but a fundamental mismatch in our societal toolkit. Current Responsible Innovation (RI) approaches struggle to address the societal implications of such complex technologies. This struggle is compounded by several factors:
Opacity and Explainability: As seen with Huxley, the sheer complexity of quantum information processing can lead to "unseen failures and untraceable harms," making it nearly impossible to understand why a system failed or "how to assign responsibility when things go wrong."
Unforeseen Consequences: The Orwell scenario, though extreme, highlights the risk of "unforeseen negative societal impacts" when innovation proceeds without sufficient "anticipatory policy". Our current systems often prioritize "industry focus on innovation" and "incentive structures prioritizing profits" , potentially overlooking long-term, catastrophic risks or vital considerations like "intergenerational justice".
Loss of Control and Emergent Behaviour: The Grape allegory underscores the chilling possibility of "uncontrolled AI and unforeseen emergent behaviours". When technologies gain capabilities far beyond their initial design or human comprehension, ensuring "human oversight and control" becomes a monumental task, raising concerns of "existential risk".
The Digital Divide: Beyond these direct risks, there's the pervasive threat of exacerbated inequalities. Just as the "digital divide seen with classical computing" has shown, the unequal distribution of quantum computing access "may exacerbate existing inequalities" across different socioeconomic groups and nations. Smaller economies already "face significant challenges in developing quantum technology infrastructure due to financial, technical, and strategic barriers" , risking a future where quantum benefits are concentrated, leading to new forms of "capability deprivation".
We stand at a crossroads where the transformative capacity of quantum technologies could bring immense flourishing—revolutionizing drug discovery, enhancing cybersecurity, optimizing finance, and advancing AI. However, to truly unlock these benefits, we must acknowledge that simply allowing innovation to outpace our ethical and governance frameworks is a path fraught with peril. We cannot afford to stumble into the quantum future hoping for the best.
Proposals for a Responsible Quantum Future: Building a New Rulebook
To enjoy the immense "flourishings" quantum computing can bring with greater peace of mind, we must proactively build "dense and unbelievably flexible frameworks with a ridiculous amount of feedback loops and edge case directives." This requires a multi-pronged approach:
Cultivating Quantum Literacy: Education for All
The first step is empowering humanity with understanding. A "quantum-rich education" should be integrated from primary school all the way through to the end of high school. For adults, comprehensive "quantum resources" should be made readily available online and locally, through classes and community groups designed to engage the public with quantum learning. This fosters a baseline understanding, enabling "public reasoning" and informed participation in the societal shaping of this technology.
Democratizing Access and Experience: Community Quantum Hubs
When quantum computers become more accessible, local governments should fund community labs, each equipped with a single quantum computer. These hubs would provide observed and guided access to the public. This ensures that the benefits of quantum are not confined to a privileged few, actively addressing the potential for "unequal quantum computing adoption" to "widen the gap between socioeconomic groups". It’s a step towards ensuring "fair equality of opportunity". Areas without necessary funding can likely have access to neighboring areas that do.
The Open-Source Imperative (and its Challenges):
Ideally, all developments and findings in quantum computing should be made completely open source. This principle aligns with promoting "international collaboration" and preventing the "monopolization of quantum resources" , ensuring quantum is treated as a "global public good".
However, I acknowledge a significant contention here: the geopolitical "arms race" in AI and quantum between major powers like the USA and China. This reality makes the immediate open-sourcing of critical, competitive findings seem counterintuitive to national security interests. To what end, then, is this race if it limits the very transparency needed for global safety?
This leads to a modified proposal: A global, entirely non-partisan watchdog organization. This body would analyse all quantum findings streamed directly to them, then release summarized, peer-reviewed, and fact-checked findings to the public. Critically, these public summaries could perhaps be released without source of origin if necessary for sensitive research, balancing transparency with security concerns. This body would act as a crucial mechanism for "anticipatory policy" and ensuring "transparency guarantees" in a globally competitive landscape. It ensures "responsible deployment of quantum technologies" through a collective, informed lens.
Lets not be like the Engineers
The "Quantum Gap" is not a distant sci-fi scenario but an urgent contemporary challenge. As quantum computing blossoms, bringing unprecedented opportunities, so too does it cast long shadows of potential ethical dilemmas. From untraceable harms and unforeseen catastrophes to loss of human control and widened inequalities. Our existing frameworks, like old rulebooks for new machines, are simply insufficient. To navigate this transformative era responsibly, we must proactively invest in quantum literacy, democratize access, and champion transparent, globally collaborative governance. Only by building a new rulebook, rooted in shared ethical principles and robust oversight, can humanity truly harness the flourishing’s of the quantum age with peace of mind.
As we close this chapter, I hope our journey through the quantum realm, from its curious mechanics to its daunting ethical precipice, has sparked new thoughts and perhaps even a shared sense of urgency. The challenges are significant, yes, but so too is our collective capacity for foresight, collaboration, and a general common sense. This isn't just about technological advancement; it's about shaping a future that truly serves humanity, guided by empathy, wisdom, and justice. The Engineers were clever—We need to be more than clever.
Yours in thoughtful inquiry,
Matthew.
I m Not tht much in this genre but still I try to understand somethings and Thank you for spreading these information 🩷️