Shaping an inclusive global action to anticipate quantum technologies
31 May 2024 10:00h - 10:45h
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Engaging non-quantum states in global quantum technology governance
In a session dedicated to the global governance of quantum technologies, Dr. Pieter Vermaas, a philosopher of technology at TU Delft, led a discussion on how to engage non-quantum states in this cutting-edge field. The session was a follow-up to a previous one on the same topic and aimed to foster a more interactive dialogue among participants.
Dr. Vermaas, who is at the forefront of ethics research in quantum initiatives in the Netherlands and collaborates with Austria on similar projects, emphasized the need for inclusivity in developing global strategies. He highlighted the disparity in quantum engagement, noting that while 33 countries are active in quantum research or technology, many others, particularly within the G77, are not yet involved.
The panel included Annegast from Quantum Delta and Marek from Jesta, who, along with Dr. Vermaas, facilitated a brainstorming session with both in-person and online attendees. The discussion revolved around three key questions: the factors that would convince states to join quantum governance actions, what would enable their participation, and their objectives in doing so.
Ms. Marieke Hood from the Open Quantum Institute (OQI) shared the institute’s experience in making quantum computers accessible through cloud services. She pointed out the importance of raising awareness and building capacity in quantum algorithms and their real-world applications. The OQI’s educational consortium was highlighted as an important initiative to bridge the knowledge gap in quantum algorithmics.
The brainstorming session produced a range of insights. Participants suggested that the promise of economic growth could motivate states to engage in quantum governance. The need for technology transfer and infrastructure development was also identified as crucial for enabling participation. Additionally, the aspiration for sovereignty and independence was seen as a potential incentive for non-quantum states to become involved in quantum technology.
The urgency of addressing the risks associated with quantum computing, particularly its threat to classical cryptography, was underscored. The possibility of quantum states decrypting sensitive data in the future highlighted the need for immediate governance measures.
The session concluded with an acknowledgment of the topic’s importance and the need for continued discussion to develop concrete actions. The ideas generated were intended to be shared with participants and used to inform future strategies for engaging non-quantum states in quantum technology governance.
Significant observations from the session included the recognition of the multi-stakeholder nature of quantum governance, involving quantum states, non-quantum states, and private companies. Strategic alliances between these groups could shape governance actions. The role of international organizations like UNESCO in fostering dialogue and cooperation was also recognized as essential for ensuring inclusivity.
In summary, the session illuminated the intricate dynamics between economic interests, educational imperatives, and geopolitical factors in the governance of quantum technologies. It highlighted the critical need for a collaborative and inclusive approach to ensure that all states have a role in determining the trajectory of this transformative technology.
Session transcript
Dr. Pieter Vermaas:
you Okay, good morning again. Many of you have already been in the previous session on quantum technologies and a call for global governance on it. This is the second session on quantum technologies and it’s a bit different. We’re going to do it a bit different to the previous session in the sense that we will start walking in the room in a moment to help explore a topic which is key of this session, namely how can you shape these global actions that one which Amira presented at last session, but others also in a way that they are themselves inclusive globally. I’m Peter Vermaes. I’m a philosopher of technology at TU Delft and leading the ethics research in quantum delta and alpha for the Netherlands. And I’m also involved in similar efforts also with Austria, about how to get UNESCO and other world wide entities into movement, so organize something that the world knows about quantum and can anticipate its impact. Other initiatives are there and also a World Economic Forum for instance, and Jesta which we were just talked about has the Open Quantum Institute which tries to make quantum accessible for all. But the question is, how can you do that actually? Let me briefly introduce the panel. It’s not really an official panel because we’re going to walk in a minute, but there’s Annegast helping me to moderate this panel also for quantum delta now, and I’m happy that Marek is also present from Jesta. Can I have the next slide? Yeah, maybe the next one again. Yeah, so this is in a sense the question which is on the table. So if we have these initiatives, global, worldwide, to talk about quantum mechanics and to quantum technologies and to try to invite all these states over the world to get ready, to get informed, to also think about how they can use quantum technologies, how can we do that? As said, quantum delta now is trying also with our partners to inform the rest of the world about what is coming, trying to make that step to the periphery as Shamira presented. So we write documents which I shared about what should be done for instance by UNESCO. But what we also do, and that was actually more striking, is we set out research about how far quantum technologies actually went into the world. So how many states are actually busy with it and what are they doing? This is another big report which was part of this session. There’s the link. And it set out, okay, take the G77, what are they doing with quantum? And if you look at it, you see that 33 countries are actually busy with quantum in some way or the other. Academic research or even building technology. Okay, that sounds a lot, but of course we realise that the G77 is nowadays more than 100, 30, 40 countries part of it. So that means that 100 states in the world are not busy with quantum technologies. So our calls are directed at them and being a good customer or servicing your customer, you have to know what your customer wants. How can you reach them actually? So that’s the question. How can we draw in these countries? And we call them, for the sake of argument, the non-quantum states, those 100 countries. What do they think? What do they want? How are they able to actually physically or mentally participate in these actions? Those are the questions. And what I want to do, and we’ll say more about that in a minute, what I want to do is to have a kind of broad brainstorm event where all your knowledge of quantum technologies and of countries all over the world comes together, where you use it to come up with ideas about how we could reach those countries. To warm up a bit, to get a bit of an angle on what the problems might be, but it’s all open. So this part of a brainstorm is no limitations, just write down whatever comes to mind. It’s hopefully relevant. But in order to warm up, I would like to also ask Marika if she has experiences with the Open Quantum Institute about one of these maybe 100 non-quantum states trying to reach out, trying to do something. But
Ms. Marieke Hood:
for some reason, it stopped. Thank you, Peter. Thank you for the invitation. And I hope my contribution now will also give some elements to answer the questions in the previous panel, which were around the role of private sector and how we can mitigate the digital divide. So within the Open Quantum Institute, we have at a very small scale, again, but we have, let’s assume we have solved partially the problem of access. So we have a partnership with 12 industry providers from the private sector that are actually owning the most advanced of the prototype, small scale, experimental stage quantum computers that we have now. They are making those quantum computers available through the cloud. And those industry partners, they are donating some time on their machines for Open Quantum Institute to then redistribute to non-quantum geographies, non-quantum states, but also those who don’t have quantum access for other reasons within specific countries. And so let’s assume we have solved the problem of access because they are available through the cloud. So what are the next issues that we faced? First stage is, of course, to build awareness amongst those countries, why they should care about quantum computing, what they should focus resources on, exploring what they could do with quantum computers now, even if those machines are not ready, not at maturity yet. So that first stage of awareness is very important. I think we have come to this, to the point where we have more and more traction from these countries. And we are working, of course, through the nation, their representations, but also the academic partnerships of the OQI to raise awareness. And then the second key issue is then capacity building, because even if in most countries you have some training or some academic programs that focus on understanding quantum physics, quantum physics, the quantum physics principles that help with building a quantum computer, that’s very good, but it’s completely different from understanding quantum algorithms. And even more complicated is not just understanding, knowing about quantum algorithms, but knowing how to apply these algorithms into specific real-world problems. So that’s what we have realized. We have some countries, some ministries in countries who were very keen for their research community to engage with the OQI, but when we had the first workshops, we realized that they didn’t have the quantum algorithmics expertise. So the OQI community, actually it’s not the OQI team, it’s the OQI community that has mandated itself, created itself, set it up itself as an education consortium and a dis-education consortium. So that has around 40 providers that are working towards creating an integrated roadmap to focus on exactly that, how to build applications to quantum computers, so educational programs on how to build quantum applications, how to leverage existing quantum algorithms and how to apply them to specific focus. Thank you.
Dr. Pieter Vermaas:
Okay, thanks. Now, of course, outreach education seems to be the first answer, but maybe that’s not enough. And the question on the table now is, can we do more than outreach? That’s not to say we don’t do outreach, but what more can we do to bring them to the table? Okay, what we’re going to do, and I will give the details, is that we suspend the panel for a moment and then start collecting thoughts and then the last 10 minutes we use for wrapping up observations and discussions. It’s not meant to come up with a conclusion, but it’s more meant to collect ideas, which will be
Ms. Anna Grashuis:
shared. Thank you, Peter. Okay, we wanted to make this session a bit more interactive. Obviously, we didn’t know who exactly was coming, so we would like to explore a bit what our knowledge level is about quantum, where you’re from. We also have quite a few participants online, so I will check. I can have everyone seeing, maybe gallery, yeah. Okay, so this exploration we will do by a show of hands. One of the reports that was added in the session, it’s a link to the AWO report, it’s very much focused on the global south and north and the differences in between that one. You can find it online as well. So, please raise your hand, also for the participants online, if you are from the global north. Okay, all right. Raise your hand if you’re from the global south. Okay, thank you. Please raise your hand if you consider yourself an expert in quantum. Okay, and raise your hand if you are still learning. Still learning. Okay, and then last question. If you do not know anything about quantum, which is totally fine, please raise your hand. Okay, cool, welcome. Okay, so for this brainstorm, we proposed three questions, the following three. What will convince states to join governance actions on quantum? Second, what will enable states to participate in governance actions of quantum? And a third question, what would states aim to achieve with governance actions on quantum? So, first for the participants online, we created a Google Doc. I will send the link in the chat in a bit. If I’m correct, everyone is able to write their thoughts and ideas down. Everyone has editing rights. If not, please do let me know. And I believe, Pierre, are you still with us? I am. Perfect, thanks. Would you be so kind to keep an eye on the suggestions and after answering the questions, we will do a reflection and I can give you the floor for a bit to summarize what the online participants responded. Is that okay? All right, it’s a beautiful responsibility to be the voice of the online people. Perfect, thank you, Pierre. For us in the room, we have four papers in front and we have pens as well. On each paper, we have a certain question. Feel free to answer, feel free to put any kind of idea related to that question. We have a fourth paper as well for any general thoughts that you want to share with us. We have 15 minutes for this, so we will stop at 10.30 and then we will do a reflection with the panel and if you have any other things to mention, feel free. So, 15 minutes, good luck and have fun. I see one question. Is there still a question or was it still from the raising of hands? I think we can start. Yeah, so the slides are here. all right for the people online we have five minutes left so feel free to add anything in the Google Docs and then we’ll proceed with the reflection in a
Dr. Pieter Vermaas:
bit you you like to hear about uh what would they like to achieve some of the answers about trust them to be a state themselves uh from security to um very good that’s a negative formulation of the second overwhelm figures for ourselves the state but let’s just get the part of the science set here I’m just going to keep it behind, I don’t see a lot of people behind it. Okay let’s make sure we’re… I’m just going to explain this to you. So what I’m saying is, what is actually interesting to people is to see what ways the states… Okay, so we’ll switch to the microphones. If you want to say something, please switch on your microphone. The comment was, there’s a mismatch between the questions on the slides and the question here. Those are generic questions about how to get states together. Whereas the session was indeed focused on the hard case. How can you get the hundred states part of your action? Who are not yet engaged into quantum technology in one way or the other. So we’re collecting ideas about that. Okay. How many… One minute. They’re still writing?
Ms. Anna Grashuis:
Online, I see still a few people editing. Yeah, we have one minute left, but we can slowly transfer into our reflection. Maybe starting with the things that are written on the sheets on the paper in the room. And then we will go on to Pierre for the online reflection. Yes. So I will ask that question also to you.
Dr. Pieter Vermaas:
What did strike you from what was written down on the pieces of papers, on the sheets? One thing which I struck, I was already saying it without a microphone, was that a few of the comments on the paper here on the third question. So what are the aims states want to achieve with being part of action on governance? Is that they don’t want to be in a state which is inservitude or which can uphold their own security. And that seems, if you look at that from a bit of a helicopter view, it seems that what non-quantum states would like to achieve, could achieve through these actions, is a kind of independence, sovereignty themselves, a proudness that they are also sharing in this new technology. If we could frame a call in that way, so join quantum technology because it puts you on the map, it makes you a solid partner of the rest of the world. That seems much more attractive. I would say that it’s an attractive proposition. It’s not about risks, it’s about becoming a full-blown state in the world’s podium. Would something like that work as a motivation for an action, participating in action? What are your thoughts about that? Are the technology wars about that, about who can become?
Audience 1:
Any comments on that, thoughts on that? I have a comment and I think someone already highlighted it. technology transfer and infrastructure development, especially for developing countries will be very important. How are they going to be part of the quantum ecosystem or the global quantum economy if they don’t have the practical infrastructure needs, like the access ability in terms of human capital and other criteria to be actually part of the race instead of in a like theoretical principled way, what hard tangible benefits are going to be accrued to them from countries that have the capabilities and how can we form global international cooperation towards that? It’s not always rainbows and roses. Countries have their own national strategies and agendas, but then that’s what we’re trying to advocate for international cooperation. Yes, you have the geopolitical heft and the infrastructure and the money, but can you see this as a global interdependent issue that we need to change for achieving the SDGs and using information for all, for example, like Xianghong highlighted and Marieke also highlighted in her intervention in the first session.
Dr. Pieter Vermaas:
So there’s more an answer to the question of what enables states to participate. This is not only being informed, but also giving a structure where they can start building their capacities and maybe even building their technologies. Other observations? When you were walking before the sheets, what are things which strike you? I just, Peter, I just have a, may I just share a few words before I leave? I’m sorry, I have another meeting.
Audience 2:
Thank you, Peter, for also continuing the conversation in such an interactive manner, which really inspired to me. I’m thinking that this is like an AI. You know, there are, on quantum, clearly there will be no quantum technology states, and then quantum may also be still led by some countries. So that’s why exactly we need to have this global governance and also to enable every country, even if they don’t have the quantum, but they have capacity to govern, to regulate the technology when they are applied to society, when they’re impacting the country. Just like so many countries in Africa, they don’t have any AI companies, they don’t have this innovation yet, but they need to know about the potential risks and the potential, even opportunities they can have for their countries. And even at the worst scenario, they should be able to protect their personal data, their privacy, not being exploited further. I mean, from so many global South countries, as I see the meaning of our work, it’s really to facilitate the international cooperation, but also really to consider the inclusivity, inclusion, I like the point, your point here, this is actually on inclusion of the developing country and global South into the policy and the governance discussion. And by the way, I also like to do a little bit publicity because I just joined today with Sciences Po and UNESCO and many other organizations, we launched a global dynamic coalition on measuring digital inclusion.
Dr. Pieter Vermaas:
It is- May I come back to your first observation? So you seem to have an answer to the convince question. You have to convince states to be part of an effort by telling about the risk and possibly the benefits. But what’s your thoughts about how to enable states to stay on the table? What do states have to be given maybe by UNESCO in order to, let’s say for a year, think about governance?
Audience 2:
Yeah, definitely. I do think that the international organization, multilateral system already in place like UNESCO, we are not the only one, ITU are here. We play such a crucial role in involving global South in a dialogue with all the other countries in the same table. That’s exactly what we talk about, the equal footing of the multi-stakeholder approach here at OASIS and post-OASIS plus 20 process that to have the governments and policy makers to be accessing the pioneer knowledge to know exactly what’s impacting them, definitely. Thank you.
Dr. Pieter Vermaas:
Okay, thank you. How about the online discussion? Yes, Pierre, are you still with us?
Audience 3:
Of course, I will not bail from my responsibility. So we’ve got quite a bit of contributions, especially for question number three, but perhaps you want me to take them in order. So for what will convince states, the first comment was a pretty clear one is that people believe that quantum will boost the economy. So states will be convinced to join governance actions, which I guess implies that governance action should be geared towards boosting economy and boosting quantum itself. There are also people suggesting that there would be joint governance could unlock some opportunities for joint public investments and technology transfers. And someone suggested the unified position from global South and non-quantum states in order to gain leverage either, to gain leverage in regards to quantum states, quantum leaders, but also private companies. I think it’s an interesting point, right? There was a question on previous panel on the role of private companies in regards to sovereignty. Well, it’s very hard to think about cooperation when you see two groups that are competing and whose interests do not align. Here we have three different groups of stakeholders, right? Like you could say quantum states, non-quantum states and private companies. And so you could think that perhaps there is some equilibrium to look for in local alliance between two of those stakeholders to force the third one into action. So perhaps there is some disunified position from global South or non-quantum states could convince private companies to team up in order to force states, to convince states to join governance actions. Do you want to react to this one or shall I move to question number two? Let’s see if there are reactions in the room.
Dr. Pieter Vermaas:
So the idea is all of a sudden, okay, actually we have three parties on the table. Could you use that? Could companies and the global South, let’s say force the core countries into action or are there other possibilities available? What came to mind? I see some nodding, yeah, that all of a sudden gives new possibilities.
Audience 4:
Yeah. I come from a quantum state. I think that we just have to, I think looking at what has happened right now with AI is probably a perfect example. I mean, this is not new technology whatsoever. And while there were like ongoing initiatives for several years, I mean, the EU AI Act has been around for a while. It wasn’t until there was like an urgent need did states start to move forward. Did states actually really go into action? And you can’t like, I think force state to do anything until they really see a need to do something. And it’s in the end though, I mean, that’s all a mix of both the global South asking, private sector innovating and global North seeing a need to take action immediately. So it’s like you have to have the right equilibrium all at one time. There will probably be like initiatives that start slowly, but I don’t think we’re gonna see anything fast until we hit that perfect moment. Okay, so you need urgency indeed. There’s a lot of things going on in the world.
Dr. Pieter Vermaas:
So you have to prioritize. What you see in many motivations for actions, global actions is the risk factor. So be careful, it’s going to disrupt everything. So that’s the urgency. Maybe we should think about other urgencies. There’s a question to make.
Audience 5:
Yeah, the non-quantum or the developing states, they seem to not be qualified. I mean, they seem to feel that they’re not qualified to talk, they should understand that they are qualified to talk.
Dr. Pieter Vermaas:
Okay, yeah, good point.
Audience 3:
Yeah, and if I can jump in, this aligns with some of the comments on enabling states, which is people brown out policy makers in civil society training and capacity building in order to, I guess, acquire the legitimacy, right? To speak up and to make claims regarding those joint governance actions.
Dr. Pieter Vermaas:
Yeah, so in terms of urgency, so just a disclaimer, I’m from the private sector, a company from Geneva. We are providing secure communication solutions for governments. So, and I’m a cryptographer.
Audience 6:
So for anyone who is dealing with quantum computing, will know that the quantum computing is actually pictured as a catastrophe for this field, for this particular field. All I’m hearing is negative things, to be honest. And in terms of the urgency, especially with governments and the states and the citizens in general, quantum computing will bring really a very dark scenario. So, especially the non-quantum states, they are freaking out, to be very honest, on what’s happening in the quantum states to break all of their communications and all of their sensitive data, which we are not ready whatsoever. Okay, so today the classical cryptography is everywhere. Post-quantum cryptography is being developed based on classical primitives and also quantum computing-based primitives. However, in terms of practicality, I can’t even say 1%, maybe 0.01% of deployment. So, and what is even worse, just to make things a bit worse, when suddenly a quantum state is ready for breaking classical cryptography today, all the previous and the future communications will be broken. So, there’s a paradigm called harvest now, decrypt later. So, that’s pretty urgent to figure out. So, on the technical side, obviously quantum computing is growing, et cetera, but on the defense side, as you heard many times in the AI conference, it needs to evolve pretty much fast as well. Okay, so I just want to bring that in because it’s a very practical thing, an urgent thing that’s happening as we speak on the ground. In light of time, we have to close. And a few closing observations. Anna, do you have one for us?
Dr. Pieter Vermaas:
Um, I, well, we only have one minute left actually, Nes.
Ms. Anna Grashuis:
So, very short, I believe this is a highly important topic that needs to be explored more. Quantum is developing, we’re not there yet, but especially not for the global South. So, I think we need to continue this discussion to reach concrete actions.
Dr. Pieter Vermaas:
From my side, it’s nice to see that all of a sudden new avenues evolve if you start using a marker and a piece of paper. So, indeed, the risk and urgency part, maybe we should not start threatening countries of the world, but just develop a package for post-quantum encryption and say, okay, UNESCO, why don’t you build that and offer it to the rest of the world? Because if one quantum state, as you said, has a quantum computer, the rest is quite severely into problems. And then all of a sudden it becomes a gift rather than a threat. Well, I hope we’ll share all this information. Whoever wants to have it, send an email to me or please reach out because it’s meant for everyone and I hope it will be of use to you. It was a pleasure to have this session and thanks for also the organizers previous session. And I hope you have a good event today after this. Thanks. Thank you. Recording stopped. Recording resumed. Recording resumed. Recording resumed. Recording resumed.
Speakers
A1
Audience 1
Speech speed
158 words per minute
Speech length
211 words
Speech time
80 secs
A2
Audience 2
Speech speed
162 words per minute
Speech length
389 words
Speech time
144 secs
A3
Audience 3
Speech speed
157 words per minute
Speech length
388 words
Speech time
148 secs
A4
Audience 4
Speech speed
191 words per minute
Speech length
212 words
Speech time
67 secs
A5
Audience 5
Speech speed
123 words per minute
Speech length
39 words
Speech time
19 secs
A6
Audience 6
Speech speed
167 words per minute
Speech length
309 words
Speech time
111 secs
DP
Dr. Pieter Vermaas
Speech speed
125 words per minute
Speech length
1921 words
Speech time
925 secs
MA
Ms. Anna Grashuis
Speech speed
145 words per minute
Speech length
672 words
Speech time
277 secs
MM
Ms. Marieke Hood
Speech speed
139 words per minute
Speech length
515 words
Speech time
222 secs
Related event
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)+20 Forum High-Level Event
27 May 2024 - 31 May 2024
Geneva, Switzerland and online