Here is my initial contribution to the question of how to address ethical issues of quantum technologies.
First, I think there will be for some long time lack of knowledge and incorrect understanding in the general public what quantum computers and quantum technologies are, due to the disagreements and lack of explanation for the quantum phenomena. This lack of knowledge will at one moment inhibit the public discussion about the innovations and use of these technologies. We can see that by euphoria when some news about quantum are announced (example of Google’s quantum “supremacy” and similar) and this euphoria can go in the opposite direction and become negative in case of a real or only perceived misuse or dangers of quantum computers. How do we address this? It is very difficult question, but it cannot be ignored. People don’t understand even AI, with quantum computers it can be much worse.
The next problem is that quantum computers will not be used in isolation. They will be deeply integrated in a stack of other technologies, and people will judge the whole stack together (like the 4th Industrial Revolution concept – 4IR) based on its effects on the society, human identity or the natural environment. These “4IR technologies” will be judged by their domains of application and by who is applying these technologies for what purpose.
Now, we know that there will be two major actors behind AI and quantum: large corporations and nation-states. First are developing and using various kinds of technologies for the profit purposes, and the second are using them for the regime maintenance or warfare.
Consider an example: quantum can be used by AI, which is used by a metaverse world, which is used by a digital platform, which is used by a company to develop and target advertisements, entertainment or video games to the young population. They all want to make their respective customer(s) engaged. Now, you can read this word “engaged” also as addicted. So, who is responsible for the addiction of the young users, which technology should be regulated, and where should we apply ethics ? When you take them isolated, we can find arguments that these technologies are value-neutral. But the final result might not be value-neutral.
So, the question is: what should be done with that? Luke Munn in his paper says: “AI Ethics has largely been useless”. This reflects the inconvenient truth that all governance initiatives to regulate technology were more or less unsuccessful. You may check this paper of Roger Clarke, which details all unsuccessful technology regulation attempts much before this AI hype. According to this paper, the only mechanism that could work is Co-regulation, but under the condition that there is a strong and uncompromising minister who stakes his personal accountability. In other words, some kind of benevolent dictator coming from the government.
Nevertheless, this topic is indeed important. Currently digital platforms like Facebook, Google and alike are not so invested in QC, but once the large quantum computers are up and running, naturally the capital will look for the use cases to address the market of billions of consumers. And when this happens, the neuroscience might achieve mapping of the brain, genetical engineering may achieve breakthroughs in gene editing, and AI will probably come to the level of artificial general intelligence (AGI). And in this context, ethics will become very important and indeed the people will judge all this stack. Maybe indiscriminately..
