Being able to predict this molecular origami means that we could make better drugs for diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.

That was something people thought quantum computing would be able to solve and nobody else would 20 years ago, and today we have a solution.

But if I follow Warwick's advice and slide on my optimist hat, I can maybe start to believe that we're on the brink of something important.

If you look at the progress, there is steady progress all the time.

Companies are coming out with new announcements.

They're building computers that are bigger, faster, more fault-tolerant, better error correction.

I th- I do think we will get to something, if it's not by the end of the decade, maybe by the middle of the next decade.

From the response we got, we're assuming it's still a touchy subject, and Gideon had a similar experience

So when I went to visit IBM's research center in upstate New York, I spoke to a guy called Jay Gambetta, who still is the head of the quantum team at IBM.

This was after Google had announced quantum supremacy, and I asked him what he thought of that, and he gave me this kind of pained look, and he said, "I don't like the word, and I don't like the implications"

The fight is still shaping quantum computing to this day, but who out of IBM and Google came out on top?

And I think it's still in some ways too early to say.

So, you know, since Google announced quantum supremacy in 2019, both companies and several other companies have continued to build and advance quantum computers.

Each one has its own methodology.

Each one has its own technologies.