People riding the bandwagon and generally talking about it like they're in on it when they don't know what a qubit or bell state is (or how to read braket notat

People riding the bandwagon and generally talking about it like they're in on it when they don't know what a qubit or bell state is (or how to read braket notation). It's a similar line to AI - if the people talk about it like it has the potential to (and eventually will) destroy the world, they probably don't know much about it (in that case they're conflating sentience with intelligence, and ignoring the word "artificial). The people who are working on it right now will - like with AI - tell you that it's in its infancy, that its current applications are more limited than they are made to appear in pop-culture, and that (generally) things are harder and take longer than people pretend. Which is exactly what the author of the WSJ article is getting at (because he's not a hawker - he knows): > "There’s little doubt that, in the long run, computers that exploit quantum features of matter will dramatically enhance our ability to address useful problems. But we’re not there yet, nor is success guaranteed. For the foreseeable future we will have, at best, a “quantum advantage” in well-chosen applications, not “quantum supremacy” along a broad front."