00:00welcome to the a 16c podcast London tour
00:03edition sonal and I are sitting here
00:05with a gentleman we're very excited to
00:08Ilyas Khan who is the founder and CEO of
00:12Cambridge quantum computing he is the
00:15chairman of the Hawking foundation he is
00:17the patron of the Accrington Stanley
00:21Football Club from your home home region
00:24of Lancashire and he's actually a huge
00:26- so philanthropist technologist
00:29mathematician investor you seem to do a
00:32lot elias welcome thank you as i said to
00:35your colleague i'm also quite old so one
00:37manages to fit a lot in three years so
00:40sonal and i are going to discuss all
00:43sorts of things you and maybe we can
00:44start with the quantum computing side of
00:46things it almost seems like magic I mean
00:51we've been talking about quantum
00:52computing for quite some time and I know
00:55that that your firm Cambridge quantum
00:58quantum computing has been working on an
01:00OS but maybe we can back up and sort of
01:02tell us you know first off what is the
01:06promise of quantum computing and kind of
01:09where are things what's the state of the
01:11art as you know and as you guys are
01:13working on it right yep so it's my third
01:17startup at the grand old age of 51 and
01:21both of my first two startups were in
01:25technology as well but in my late 20s
01:27and 30s and quantum computing as you
01:30rightly say something that's been
01:33anticipated talked about written about
01:35for a very long time and I guess takes
01:38its roots back to the terminology that
01:40was used by Fineman in the early 80s and
01:44effectively it's the way of trying to
01:47avoid the use of gates in the form of
01:50transistors and employ nature to compute
01:55for you so fineman's famous lectures on
01:58quantum computing or in fact on
02:00computing of which one lecture is on
02:02quantum computing dates back to the Year
02:0582 I think or 83 and the promise of such
02:10a machine the ideal of such a machine
02:12as being exciting people really for more
02:15than 30 years right but it's one of
02:17those technologies that whenever you
02:19read about it it's always in the next 10
02:22years for the last 30 and my encounter
02:27with with quantum computing in in
02:31probably in in a form that is more
02:34meaningful occurred in the early 2000s I
02:37was involved in running a font for the
02:39government of Hong Kong and it was a
02:42technology fund it turned out to be
02:45quite a successful fund
02:46I ran that fund as an investment manager
02:48with a partner of mine for three years
02:50and I had the good fortune of going to
02:53Stanford in fact and I think listening
02:56at that time to martinis and and that's
03:01where my my interest in this as a as a
03:04technology that might become a business
03:06takes root the current state of affairs
03:09is blessedly simple to describe actually
03:13most of the technology reports can be
03:17divided into two sectors one is the work
03:20that is done in academia and that is
03:23largely theoretical and probably the
03:27tipping point occurred late last year
03:30when the work being done by corporate
03:34entities which have a profit motive
03:36became more important than the work that
03:39was being done by academia so in many
03:42respects if let's say that we were
03:45looking backwards from the year let's
03:47just use ten years let's say and just to
03:50be clear those corporate entities that
03:52elects of I know Intel's putting money
03:53in IBM etc but or whatever who are we
03:56talking about it divides neatly into
03:59sort of three or four categories and the
04:03the the the the quick sort of elevator
04:06pitch version of the answer to your
04:08story is as follows the Giants on the
04:11should we say the the Western world
04:14Europe and America are very clearly
04:17dominated by Microsoft and Google of
04:21course IBM you mentioned Intel they're a
04:24relatively recent entrant
04:26and in fact if you look very carefully
04:27the annual reports of people like Google
04:30and Microsoft you'll see that this is
04:32not a recent investment very large
04:34amounts of money both as a percentage of
04:37their research programs as well as in
04:39absolute terms have been spent
04:41particularly by Microsoft and Google on
04:43quantum computing Microsoft has a
04:46fantastic campus which is devoted to
04:50quantum computing the second block of
04:53corporate activity is that which has
04:57been sponsored largely by the state and
05:00state-owned entities in China and two
05:04years ago we were all privy to the news
05:08that as far as the Chinese were
05:10concerned quantum computing is their
05:12number one priority it's not water it's
05:15not population controlled it's not food
05:17this quantum computing there is no
05:19budget which means there's no limit to
05:22the budget it means no there's no budget
05:24rare is no budget they will do whatever
05:26it takes to be a leader in this field
05:28which it could be actually quite
05:30fascinating because I don't know if the
05:31US government is investing that much oh
05:33yes it is there's some amazing work also
05:38now being sponsored on quantum
05:40cryptographically communication on the
05:42infrastructure side and the Japanese
05:45Toshiba for example have been really
05:50very prominent in this area so this
05:52means that if and when we have true
05:54quantum computing the means and the
05:56infrastructure through which we might be
05:58able to affect such secure
06:00communications needs to be deployed
06:02Chinese of course are there as well for
06:04probably the same reasons cryptography
06:07has a lot to do with that I'm sure - I
06:08think secure comms is definitely the
06:13easy of low-hanging fruit in
06:16conversations like this when we try and
06:18describe reasons or rationale for why
06:20governments would be involved but but I
06:23think it's actually slightly misleading
06:24if the promise that Fineman held forth
06:28in the early 80s is even remotely true
06:32then the impact of quantum computing on
06:34our lives as we sit around this table
06:36will be greater for example than that
06:39our forefathers during the Industrial
06:41Revolution had during their lifetimes
06:43and certainly if you looked at the
06:45transistor age roughly from the time
06:47that let's in 1945 up to about 1980
06:52before we got into the miniaturization
06:56race we've all I've certainly lived
06:59through that and I can think of myself
07:01as being the recipient of amazing
07:03changes my children live in a world
07:04which is very different from when I
07:06lived in however those changes would be
07:10as if nothing compared to what will
07:12happen if fineman's and other people's
07:16aspirations are to be even remotely true
07:18Alibaba is a represents what I would
07:23consider a sort of a fourth category
07:25these are not traditional technology
07:27companies but they're people who've
07:28decided that they want to be in the game
07:31Alibaba is just one of them or Samsung
07:34has a very big program Apple are very
07:36interested and so these are new Intel we
07:38mentioned earlier there's a new entrants
07:40Cisco for example hewlett-packard
07:43Siemens these people have businesses
07:46that if it is in fact true that quantum
07:50computing will become prevalent unless
07:52you say within 10 years because 10 years
07:53is not that long a time then these
07:57people have something at stake at least
07:58I won't ask you a question about what
07:59enables these players now to enter the
08:02game where they may not have before but
08:04before we answer that could you actually
08:06describe what the benefits of quantum
08:08computing are because you describe this
08:10vision that vitamin had Richard Feynman
08:12had and we understand that you know the
08:15problem at solving is that going beyond
08:18the constraints of gate logic based
08:20computing but what does that give us and
08:24what are the applications that are
08:25possible because of that I think that
08:28the the honest answer is that we
08:31actually don't know and you know I was a
08:35youngster when the first mobile phones
08:37came out and I had no idea no idea what
08:41a mobile phone would do for me other
08:43than the fact that I could call my
08:44mother whilst was on the motorway and I
08:48think that that's although it can be
08:50trite and I don't want to descend into
08:53prisons but I don't think we actually
08:56know what impact truly quantum computing
09:00will have when mobile phones first came
09:02out you're right most people thought of
09:04like the application being the phone
09:06when in fact the reality is that I think
09:08now most people use it for the computing
09:10than the actual phone tell off any
09:11aspect of it whatsoever I mean I don't
09:14think people even expected the app
09:15ecosystem and App Store's and all the
09:18other things that would happen even
09:19though there has been this vision of
09:20ubiquitous computing for a long time I'm
09:22glad you're supportive because I use the
09:24analogy I speak about quantum computing
09:26a lot often to business audiences and
09:30and I think one has to try and be
09:33accessible there's no point using very
09:36long words that sound incredibly
09:38complicated and impressive if you're not
09:41making a point but there's also a
09:43balance where it becomes slightly
09:45diminished so that's point number one
09:48point number two now now to be a little
09:50bit more specific speed-up in
09:54computation is what a quantum computer
09:57is about Fineman and and all the rest of
10:00the great Charlie Bennett at IBM pretty
10:04sure Shor's algorithm
10:06you know qatayef all the people that
10:09Microsoft of course martinis now at
10:11Google you know these are the Giants of
10:13the the industry my own partner founder
10:17in in in Cambridge quantum a guy called
10:20techies these people are very grounded
10:23and their approach is that let's just
10:27focus on ensuring that the exponential
10:30speed-up that is offered through pure
10:34computation can be achieved
10:36now the applications of that we can't
10:39even imagine you know would it be the
10:42easy analysis of some genome related
10:45aspect that is currently beyond us
10:48for example the thousands of years that
10:50it might take current computers to solve
10:54a certain optimization problem could be
10:56done very quickly it could be as we've
10:59discussed before secure communications
11:01which are truly secure so that we're not
11:04attempting to factorize large numbers
11:07which is currently the case the benefits
11:09of speed are not what help make quantum
11:13cryptography possible it sounds like
11:15it's more a benefit of the fact that it
11:17doesn't have to be based on so there two
11:21aspects to cryptography the current
11:23state of affairs is that when we
11:27communicate more often than not the
11:30public key encryption that we use is
11:32based on the inability of computers to
11:35find factors for large numbers and so
11:38breaking or creating codes will no
11:41longer be possible using that particular
11:45mechanism now that can get very scary
11:49because imagine if somebody had a secret
11:51quantum computer and I don't know JP
11:54Morgan Citibank and Barclays an HSBC
11:56suddenly woke up one day and find that
11:59there are carrots were empty the NSA has
12:02recommended that people start using
12:04quantum encryption techniques right you
12:07know even though in theory quantum
12:08computers don't exist but stuff so what
12:10aspect is cryptography in the form of
12:14both code-breaking and called creating
12:17the second aspect is what Einstein was
12:21famously responsible for being very
12:23skeptical about and this is a spooky
12:26action at a distance or entanglement or
12:29I mean many different ways of describing
12:31it for the average person on the street
12:34but what we're talking about here is the
12:37fact that the mere act of observation in
12:39a quantum world breaks the quantum
12:44system itself so the message
12:46disintegrates so don't think of it as
12:49box problem or that's one aspect of it
12:52you know the cat's alive and it's dead
12:54but the way I would describe it and I
12:58can take no credit for this this I heard
13:00from Leonard Susskind
13:02at Stanford by the way I should take
13:05that back the great Leonard Susskind and
13:07he teaches a course which by the way is
13:10accessible to all is on the internet and
13:13Stanford make it available but he
13:15defined something called the
13:17a basic minimum and he teaches courses
13:20on the basic minimum for classical
13:23physics for mechanics for quantum
13:25physics and he describes this issue of
13:28entanglement as follows he says in the
13:32classical world world of the big we can
13:34measure things because if I measure the
13:36distance between the two of you who are
13:39sitting on the other side of the table
13:40from me right now I could use a ruler
13:43and the ruler would not disrupt the fact
13:46that you're sitting there and it's
13:48relatively easy to say that you're 12
13:50inches apart luckily were in England
13:53inches still matter no the point is that
14:00it has a very temperate and very low
14:04impact on its environment
14:05I could even use a laser I could I could
14:07have a laser ruler and that would not
14:10affect the fact that it term is pretty
14:12accurate mind you when you start then
14:14going into the world of the quantum and
14:16remember we're talking about sub atomic
14:20things these are incredibly small
14:27maleeh doesn't we're not equipped to
14:30describe or imagine even great we came
14:34in conceived we're hardwired to conceive
14:37of the big things we can talk about the
14:39universe but when you start going the
14:41other way around our minds abandon
14:44reality very quickly nevertheless when
14:47we try to observe subatomic particles
14:49the ways in which we observe and measure
14:52which use light there or an electronic
14:57charge or some other such invasive
15:00instrument affect the actual state of
15:05affairs and so that's what we have been
15:09referred to in the past when you mention
15:12Schrodinger's cat or action it's a
15:14spooky distance but there are ways in
15:16which communications can be safeguarded
15:22using something called for example
15:24quantum key encryption and and if some
15:30interfere with the message being sent
15:32the message a bit like Mission
15:34Impossible it would sort of break up
15:35when to solve for something so this is
15:37where my head starts to hurt when we
15:38talk about quantum computing it and you
15:41know you just described this whole list
15:43of very large very profit-driven very in
15:47some ways rational companies although
15:49Google you could you could argue whether
15:50it's rational or not but they do
15:51interesting things and you're saying
15:54that we don't know what it'll be used
15:56for but and yet everyone is very
15:58optimistic about what
15:59oh no I what I I think that's a if I've
16:02given that impression then III apologize
16:05what I said was I think it's very
16:08difficult to be specific about the
16:11applications that write occur it is not
16:13difficult to realize what is
16:16strategically of great consequence and
16:18the profit driven businesses that you've
16:22mentioned and ultimately I'm a profit
16:24driven business as well we can see
16:28things which do matter and which a
16:32quantum computer perhaps in the early
16:34days aligned with classical computers
16:37because all of our classical systems
16:38aren't gonna disappear in a puff of
16:40smoke one day and I'll give you a couple
16:43of examples that are generically talked
16:44about even today we've spoken about the
16:48fact that secure communications will
16:51change in ways that aren't too even
16:54incremental they were just simply shift
16:57right and there is a large
16:58infrastructure of people whether it be
17:01government's whether it be Defense
17:03Department's whether it be banks whether
17:04it be other types of companies who
17:07communicate all the time and they will
17:09need products and they will need
17:12machines now is that is that a hundred
17:15thousand is that a millionaire's that
17:16twenty million customers it's certainly
17:18a very very very large market and so I
17:21think that it's only right and proper
17:24that we allow for the reality that there
17:27is a Strategic Defense and communication
17:30related application in the early days
17:31just like the early days of the internet
17:33in fact yes absolutely and and so many
17:36of our technologies the
17:38the Apollo space mission program was
17:41shrouded in the kind of secrecy that was
17:44really a hangover of the Manhattan
17:46Project now the other thing is and this
17:49is very close to my heart
17:51optimization problems one of the great
17:54optimization problems actually is
17:56tracking signals from data that could be
17:59stock markets it could be people who
18:02visit Expedia there are all kinds of
18:04things which currently take time and in
18:06fact not only take time but become
18:09exponentially impossible to manage
18:10there's simply because of the sheer
18:12volume of data and because your complex
18:15interactions not just the size it's
18:18actually the way that data interacts
18:19with each other that's right
18:20we know the maths we know how to do it
18:23but actually converting a piece of paper
18:25or an algorithm into a workable solution
18:27is where the machinery breaks down and a
18:31quantum computer even with a modest
18:33number of qubits and and the the analogy
18:38that gets bandied around by everybody
18:40who's been on the d-wave website or
18:43who's read all these articles is that a
18:46quantum computer with 40 or 50 entangled
18:49qubits would be more powerful than
18:51anything that we currently have in
18:54existence is true we're not there yet by
18:59the way but when we get there these
19:02machines will have an amazing capacity
19:05to solve these types of problems one of
19:08the applications from that would be the
19:11quick and careful analysis of our DNA
19:16and the creation of designer drugs so
19:19that's one example that is very
19:22interesting another which is a little
19:24bit more hitting your pocketbook is that
19:27the holy grail for stock markets has
19:30been predictive behavioral analysis and
19:34at the moment it doesn't exist but it
19:37could exist and it'll even the playing
19:40field it won't take away from the fact
19:42that we still have to analyze companies
19:44and decide which companies are good and
19:46which companies are bad but then
19:48investment will become closer to what
19:52and all these people have been talking
19:53about that's why I say it's holy gril
19:55what is really relevant which has eluded
19:59is to try and find out whether a stock
20:02or a bond or a Treasury based on the
20:06collection of vast amounts of data is
20:09likely to move one way or the other
20:10prior to its movement so very predictive
20:13in a completely new way just one
20:15interruption here Ilyas I'm gonna say
20:16something very blasphemous is it
20:18possible that we're also talking about
20:20something very academic that's a
20:22something that's a technology that's
20:24seeking a problem and the reason I'm
20:26asking this is because there are good
20:28enough solutions that can approximate
20:31some of these answers to these very
20:32why wouldn't a very powerful simulation
20:35system that computers can currently do
20:38address some of these same things like
20:41what does quantum computing really get
20:42us there's a very fair question I think
20:44that maybe up until a few years ago
20:46you're right but it's no longer correct
20:48I did this issue of being academic under
20:54two or three reasons first of all
20:56self-evidently classical computers
20:59aren't equipped and even the simple
21:01example of the factorization the only
21:04reason we have our essay and
21:05factorization based cryptography the
21:08classical computers take thousands and
21:10thousands of years even today that
21:11little machine of yours the iPhone that
21:13I've got or whatever and how many
21:15transistors are in there but two billion
21:18or something and the fastest Cray
21:21machines and even if you wired all of
21:23them up together they simply can't do it
21:25it that's beyond them and so there are a
21:28class of problems which we know will
21:31become open so that's not something that
21:33is merely speed up so it's a difference
21:36of kind not a difference of degree
21:37they're fine that's right that's the
21:40whole final thing we're using nature
21:42there's always a better faster smaller
21:44gizmo that comes around and the better
21:47faster smaller gizmo then allow smart
21:50people to do something with it so I
21:53don't actually I think on this occasion
21:55it's not trying to solve a problem that
21:58doesn't exist this is trying to solve a
22:02break in our development and that
22:05was that we back in you know when ENIAC
22:09came around and when cheering was
22:11talking about his machine we started
22:13thinking of using the binary system
22:15whether there were vacuum tubes or lamps
22:18or whatever to compute and we got better
22:20and better and better at doing it and
22:22silicon of course was a godsend if we're
22:25able to harness nature it'll just be a
22:28different way of doing everything better
22:30that's all I don't think we should think
22:32of it in in magical terms the reason why
22:36it's no longer academic is that the
22:40advances in engineering the same reason
22:42why we have the Large Hadron Collider
22:44the same reason we have what there's so
22:48many advances in engineering of course
22:50now because the I think the gate
22:52fidelity of an average transistor now is
22:54I think five or six thousand times
22:57thinner than our hair so that ability to
23:01engineer at that level is the only
23:03reason why we're now even thinking of
23:06being able to build machines it's
23:08nothing else I have a question I mean
23:10sonal you mentioned that there was a
23:12difference of kind and I know technology
23:14when it emerges is not evenly
23:16distributed but if it is such a
23:18difference how do we how do you think
23:21this goes about being distributed does
23:23it go to Wall Street first I mean and
23:25that honestly doesn't seem fair it
23:26should go to you know genomics first but
23:28how do you how does this power then get
23:31distributed into the world do you think
23:33and is there a way to think about
23:35quantum computing that we haven't with
23:36maybe just the evolution of computing
23:39thus far like do not know the answer
23:41what I do know is what we all know and
23:43so I'm stating the obvious which is new
23:46technologies whenever the emerge are
23:49very quickly taken up right but in the
23:52interregnum the period when they're only
23:54selectively available you either have
23:56government intervention or you have some
24:00sort of monopolistic iran sort of you
24:03know corporate that ends up for awhile
24:07reaping the rewards so when the who are
24:09you in America of course you're familiar
24:11with the the railway barons so I don't
24:14know how this will play out but in
24:16different parts of the world
24:20that is what in fact not only do I think
24:21it has become self-evident that the race
24:25to build and manage actual quantum
24:29computing has become strategic at the
24:32government level and that is why when
24:35suddenly Intel invests in quantum
24:39computing because remember this would
24:41cannibalize their semiconductor business
24:43in time and when google has made such
24:48massive advances we are no longer
24:52talking about the the the core expertise
24:58residing in universities the budgets I'm
25:02connected with the University of
25:03Cambridge the budgets that universities
25:06have had even though they might sound
25:08large are piddling compared to the
25:12corporate budgets and in the last 18
25:15months that tipping point has happened
25:17when engineering solutions are being
25:20found I'm not on the hardware side my
25:23I'm I'm on a different side of the
25:25business which I find much more
25:26fascinating and where I think the great
25:28fortunes are going to be made but I
25:31still can see that my counterparts who
25:35were at universities are no longer at
25:36universities they're either sponsored by
25:38people like IR / or they are being
25:42employed by people like IBM and Google
25:45you alluded to some of those four
25:46categories of players you describe
25:48government some of the big companies
25:50with R&D facilities you described other
25:52people were sort of watching and
25:53engaging in the space and then you
25:55describes are the new technology
25:57what about startups unlike the past
25:59analogs we have here when we look at the
26:01history and evolution of computing where
26:03there was sort of this diffusion effect
26:05that happened from government to
26:07industry and then to startups what's
26:09sort of an Amazon Web Services like
26:11moment where it created this Cambrian
26:13explosion and the types of businesses
26:14that could be built this is kind of all
26:16happening all together
26:17of course the groundwork as you've said
26:19has been laid by universities there are
26:21now a lot of big corporate R&D players
26:23there has been government funding how
26:25can startups play in this world and what
26:27is what has changed that it has stopped
26:30being an academic to more of a
26:33oriented enterprise like how can you do
26:35a start-up here how can do you wave to a
26:36startup like how can a start-up which by
26:38definition has as a beaut Stratus
26:40resources actually engage and play in
26:42the space I can give you my perspective
26:44which is very very limited
26:46first of all I think that the big
26:49hardware game is absolutely not startup
26:52the people that have got the resources
26:55to be able to attack this problem are by
26:58definition the big guys and d-wave is
27:02not a start-up d-wave has been around
27:03for a very long time almost 20 years an
27:06IDE by the way big fan of d-wave
27:08shout-out to Colin Williams the CTO
27:11there and so I'm one of those that
27:14admire the pioneering work that d-wave
27:17have done although I don't think their
27:18machine is a true quantum computer the
27:22startup space however and this is you
27:25know why I'm so excited by this all of
27:29these machines will just be
27:31refrigerators or piles of junk if we
27:37don't have the quantum algorithms that
27:40can make them do things that we've been
27:42talking about the applications and if
27:44you look at the landscape if you turn
27:46your eye backwards the landscape is very
27:49sparse when it comes to actual quantum
27:53algorithms now one of the reasons for
27:54that is that maybe there wasn't the
27:56commercial need and it was dominated by
27:59academia and so what would a scientist
28:02do you know he wants to publish a paper
28:04he wants to be published in in in a
28:08journal start-ups are gonna change the
28:12world not the guys that make the
28:14machines and the reason is that this is
28:16probably one of the purest forms of
28:18individual brainpower this is where the
28:21individual Einstein or the individual
28:23Picasso can make a difference so we're
28:26on the mathematic side we're gonna make
28:29these things work and our customers are
28:32the people who will buy the machines and
28:34then say oh hang on a minute what am I
28:35going to do with how can I make this
28:36thing right I mean what you guys have
28:38been described as developing an OS for
28:40quantum computing is that fair it's more
28:43complicated than that I know it's not
28:46just I I have a real constraint in what
28:50I can and can't say but I just have to
28:52be a little bit generic here so we the
28:55ambition behind Cambridge quantum so the
28:57question might be why did you start can
28:59you know what's the the reason the
29:00rationale and that is two years ago I
29:03came across this amazingly talented
29:06individually but one of these Picasso
29:09types and nine to do with corporate
29:12backing and at that time I taken a
29:15position of leadership on a pro bono
29:17basis for the Business Accelerator in
29:19Cambridge so this was an attempt to help
29:22the University of Cambridge Business
29:24School do what people like Stanford and
29:27Harvard Business School do in
29:28commercializing University brains so I
29:31was doing this I came across this guy
29:32who was absolutely brilliant nothing to
29:34do with the accelerator program just I
29:36met him in the math department and our
29:38ambition was to try and develop quantum
29:41algorithms to create intellectual
29:43property to patent a whole bunch of
29:47these things so that eventually people
29:50would have to use or license our
29:52know-how right and it's driven by
29:54mathematics and within mathematics
29:57driven by certain aspect of mathematics
30:00which lends itself to the area of
30:02quantum computing which happens to be
30:03graph theory so that's how we started I
30:07should say that in those days I really
30:09thought that this would be something
30:10which would keep me occupied
30:12academically and of interest over the
30:15next eight nine ten years a Easter last
30:19year 2014 was when everything changed
30:21everything changed as when Google
30:25disclosed the fact that they were so
30:27heavily involved the went and bought the
30:31the University of California Santa
30:34Barbara team I got 50 people I think all
30:37the Google could do that and it's very
30:40easy to say oh they're doing
30:42self-driving cars and you know
30:44spectacles that can compute but this is
30:46a different order of magnitudes
30:48artificial intelligence is what really
30:52turns these guys off
30:54and we looked at each other and we knew
30:57that there has to be an operating system
31:00so we then spent a lot of time building
31:03a simulator a hardware simulator of
31:06course the simulator in the classical
31:07sense will never be anything like as
31:10effective as a real computer but it gave
31:12us the ability to start thinking of an
31:14operating system alongside that what
31:17happened in that journey is what you
31:20guys have been asking me about we
31:21suddenly started to realize that you
31:24could create applications I can ask you
31:26one quick question about this just
31:27because um it's a theme that comes up
31:29for us a lot you mentioned in your
31:31origin story you mentioned that you guys
31:32originally started out trying to create
31:34IP intellectual property and patent
31:36which is fascinating because you also
31:38said that part of the model that you
31:40were trying to help the cambridge judge
31:42school with is this business accelerator
31:44and one of the defining things of
31:46Stanford compared to a lot of different
31:48universities is it actually gives its IP
31:50away in order to enable startup founders
31:53to just freely create their businesses
31:55and then it expects to sort of reap the
31:56benefits when they come back and do more
31:59philanthropy as a way of actually so
32:01they have a long game in mind how does
32:03that play out with Cambridge what
32:04Cambridge is not there yet
32:06if I had anything to do with it we would
32:08be there so just to be very specific and
32:11an accurate I donated a relatively large
32:16amount of money to the judge Business
32:17School and that was the seed capital the
32:21the judge then used to back businesses I
32:24was on the original investment committee
32:26that then helped choose these businesses
32:28and this is a program that has become
32:30very successful in fact one of our
32:32businesses was just bought by Apple when
32:34I say therefore pro bono
32:36I meant that my involvement was not for
32:38profit but I got so involved in looking
32:41at these youngsters with brilliant ideas
32:44and these were hard tech not some other
32:46app or I shouldn't diminish that they
32:49were predominantly heartache and the
32:53point you've made about Stanford in my
32:56opinion is compelling my vision of
32:58Cambridge is that we would eventually be
33:02as far as possible on the same footing
33:06now of course we're not Stanford
33:08and the Cambridge phenomenon has been
33:10well described and documented it's been
33:12enormously successful in in Europe and
33:15my modest involvement then led to my do
33:21my own startup so whatever we're doing
33:23is not a spin-out from the University
33:26because we didn't take a technology
33:28didn't exist but what I did is I
33:30stumbled across this amazing
33:32mathematician absolutely amazing
33:34mathematician I have a question you know
33:37in in in computing typically hardware
33:41has always outstripped the software so
33:43more recently we had multi-core
33:45multi-threaded you know silicon and but
33:49nobody could program for it you know and
33:51and we're trying to sort of is the same
33:53it sounds to me like you guys are
33:55neck-and-neck right now I mean and I
33:57don't know because you can't say too
33:58much but is that the same dynamic going
34:00on in the quantum world is the hardware
34:02kind of racing ahead of this off yes
34:06yeah and I think that the if there is to
34:09be a reservation if we are to pause for
34:11breath and and and and remain grounded
34:14then the challenge for Cambridge quantum
34:17and with any other startup that's
34:18focused on the software side is exactly
34:21the point you've made you know why is it
34:23that in this area we would be able to
34:26keep pace the only thing is it's
34:28actually an empty landscape right now
34:32III I'm not aware I'm sure there must be
34:36businesses that have started up that are
34:39looking at quantum software quantum
34:43computing software and in fact there are
34:45a couple that are very focused on
34:46financial services but I'm not sure that
34:49I'm aware of anybody with the
34:51mathematical approach that we've taken
34:52so actually always I've wanted actually
34:55to clarify that because when you
34:56described a method when you just grabbed
34:57the whole space and saying that we're
34:58not on the hardware side we're doing the
35:00math side of this equation no pun
35:02intended it immediately when I think of
35:06math I think of software and when I
35:07think of an operating system I think of
35:09software there's a whole layer upon
35:12which people can code in the classical
35:15world for 40 years whether it's an
35:18operating system whether it's Linux or
35:21each media systems whether it's your eye
35:23form you know where it's all plug and
35:25play if you have expertise in what we
35:28generically call coding you can do
35:31software well you know in quantum
35:33computing you don't know even know how
35:35these bloody things are gonna work it is
35:37and where we have the advanced where in
35:40fact we have Nobel Prize winners we have
35:44people at places like Cambridge and
35:46Stanford and MIT who know how the maths
35:49works but they've never used it other
35:52than to do maths so if you look at
35:54Microsoft this topological qubit you
35:57know the the program that they're doing
35:59they've got fields medal winners taken
36:02away from the blackboards not people who
36:06code the code and guys can come later so
36:10it's too early to answer the next
36:12question which is what would the future
36:14of software development look like with a
36:16quantum computer I mean do we have any
36:18ideas or their people even thinking
36:20about it is it just simply too early you
36:22have to imagine and again we're not
36:24hardwired to imagine this but so we
36:27really reduce ourselves to analogies a
36:29machine of that magnitude would be more
36:33powerful than every single computer
36:35hooked up together and if you had a
36:37power source I don't know there was a
36:38Sun or something then they could power
36:41they still would classically be able to
36:44do that and that's why people get
36:46excited now that is a very know who
36:48knows whether that will ever happen you
36:49know I'm not done so if you talk about
36:51small blocks of time let's talk about
36:53the next three four five years I can see
36:56that software expertise people that are
36:59just magnificent and equipped to create
37:04the sorts of products that we've been
37:06talking about they will work more
37:10closely with initially the hardware than
37:14has been the case for a very long time
37:16people who are currently software guys
37:18they don't even care if they ever see a
37:20machine so you're talking like more like
37:21bare metal programming revisited from
37:23scratch it has to be has to be ah it
37:27depends on the machine you've got to
37:28have access to the machine of the early
37:30days of computing basically have any
37:32reinvent the language the goo
37:33for quantum commedia to reinvent
37:35everything one of the things that you
37:37write and talk about and think about is
37:39the philosophy of mathematics how does
37:42how does this sync up with you know that
37:45part of your brain and and you know is
37:48quantum mechanics and quantum computing
37:51right there with your philosophy of
37:53mathematics most mathematicians think
37:55that philosophers of mathematics are
37:57people who wish they were mathematicians
38:00and I fall into that category
38:02I'm a very amateur mathematician which
38:05is why at least in my academic career
38:09III have had to make do with looking at
38:12grappling with issues of the philosophy
38:14of mathematics my should we say approach
38:19to this is very much influenced by 20th
38:22century philosopher called BIC and Stein
38:24who has been waylaid by people who think
38:26he was a phosphor and many other things
38:28but by his own admission he was a
38:30philosopher of mathematics when we look
38:33at the limits of our language we
38:36actually are also talking about the
38:38limits of our knowledge and of course is
38:41a very definite segue into knock on
38:44talents a quantum computing but the
38:47whole debate that has been with us for
38:49over a hundred years about the
38:51reconciliation at some point of the laws
38:55of quantum mechanics and quantum physics
38:58with the laws of relativity and gravity
39:01the so-called theory of everything I
39:04don't know whether my children or
39:07whether their children's children's
39:09children in a hundred years time will be
39:11any closer to a theory of everything but
39:15I have benefited in my short time by
39:18exposure to some pretty gargantuan Minds
39:22non more gargantuan than the mind of
39:25Stephen Hawking and I found er of the
39:30hacking foundation yeah I merely the
39:33chairman I'm not yeah we shall Kip
39:35Thorne from Caltech of interstellar fame
39:39is my other colleague on the board and
39:41professor Malcolm Perry from Cambridge's
39:46founding trustee but to go back to the
39:50point that I was describing I cannot
39:54think of a greater prize for Humanity
39:57than making progress in unifying these
40:03approaches and thereby understanding the
40:07essential question that we've always
40:09asked which is how did it all happen
40:13where did we all come from
40:15is there a beginning is R an end I mean
40:18today we know that there I don't know
40:20how many there are a 150 billion or so
40:22stars just in our galaxy and our galaxy
40:25is one of hundreds of billions of
40:27galaxies that at least we know about and
40:31then there's this whole issue of what we
40:33don't know about and and despite our
40:37ability to to to to understand these
40:40things there's some pretty basic things
40:42we don't understand and that's where I
40:45think the floss of my at least my
40:47inspiration in looking at people like
40:49beacon Stein and the limits of language
40:50with respect to mathematics comes along
40:54and I don't think that quantum computing
40:57is necessarily directly related but
41:00obviously quantum mechanics is you've
41:02gone to starting businesses investing
41:05being an academic founding a new company
41:07being a philosophy of math and math
41:10a'mma Titian an aspiring mathematician
41:11what are your views and especially also
41:14with your role in judging some of the
41:16business plans at the Cambridge Business
41:17School what are some of your views for
41:19how we should educate people in this
41:21coming age of machines and more I mean I
41:24actually think that the Western world is
41:26sometimes too harsh on itself and I
41:29think the real debate that determines
41:32the difference between our approaches in
41:34society is the extent to which we're
41:37willing through our taxes to pay for
41:39efficient education that's a start and
41:42the ending point for this conversation
41:43and beyond that we've actually done very
41:47well we can always do better so I think
41:49you know we can sometimes be a bit harsh
41:51with respect to that question there more
41:54broadly society has many issues what we
41:57do we treat the most vulnerable in our
42:01society well do we treat the ill well
42:04the aged people like that these are
42:07issues that are political how do you use
42:10the taxes that do tax so I think it's
42:13too easy to go down that route and
42:16therefore it long-winded way of saying
42:18that stem has to be the top of the list
42:23in my opinion it remained the key to
42:26human progress there would have been no
42:28Industrial Revolution they certainly
42:30want to be nine Stein and relativity had
42:34we not allocated resource and long may
42:37so it's interesting when you say an
42:38emphasis on stem you didn't include
42:41philosophy in the liberal arts what drew
42:43us to your background as well is that
42:46you're sort of uniting all these worlds
42:47in your work and the way you think so I
42:49think it's entirely possible for all of
42:51us to be engaged and interested but then
42:55to have a specialization that's
42:56different and I think that the here in
43:00the United Kingdom I think we've got a
43:03newfound respect for Science and
43:06Technology and for engineering and it's
43:09to my mind a renaissance that actually
43:12the Americans are finding as well do we
43:14all have to become somewhat at least
43:16conversion in technology and engineering
43:18or does engineering kind of come to
43:21those other sides of of people's
43:24interests in people's minds I think the
43:26latter I think the great success of
43:28anything that's engineered is that we
43:30don't worry about whether we know how it
43:32I mean I'm fiddling with my watch I have
43:34no idea how my watch works but it works
43:36right and so I think that great
43:39engineering is all about delivering the
43:42solution so that the user has no idea
43:44and the iPhone is another example the
43:47car is another example and so that's my
43:50philosophy however in order for that to
43:52work you have to have superb products
43:56thank you Ilyas Ilyas we look forward to
43:59seeing you on the quantum side thanks
44:01for all your time thank you
