speaker-1: Welcome to Quantum Ecosystem Conversations. I'm your host and moderator, Dolly Cheetah. Today I'm joined by Troy Keller, a leader in law, business, governance, trade, public policy, whose work spans economic development, innovation, and emerging technologies. While many conversations about quantum focus on the science and engineering, today's discussion explores a different dimension, which is policy. What is quantum policy? Why does it matter? Who shapes it? And how might policy influence the flu future of quantum technologies, commercialization, workflows development, and economic competitiveness? Troy Keller is from Dorsey and Whitney and he brings a unique perspective to these questions, helping us examine how governments, industry, academia, and communities can work together to build a thriving quantum ecosystem. Troy, thank you very much for joining us today. To begin, could you briefly introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about your background and what first drew you to quantum technologies?
speaker-0: Yeah, you bet. Dolly, thanks so much for the opportunity to be here first. And thanks so much for your leadership in this area. I think you've got a lot of people, including me, thinking a lot harder about these important these these important things than than otherwise would be the case. So so again, thank thanks again. yeah, my background, I'm I'm an attorney. I, you know, I've been practicing about 30 years now, and I started and still am what we call a corporate lawyer, and that's That that can mean a lot of different things. It's a general, a general term. It includes things like capital markets work where companies are trying to go public or or you know securities securities law, which is where I started many, many years ago in a New York firm. And then it includes also mergers and acquisitions. It includes basic commercial work the companies do as they're doing deals between each other. It includes a lot on the on the business side, kind of business business law, it's most it's most general. And so I didn't so I didn't start doing policy work on Capitol Hill, anything like that. I've always been close to businesses. And I've been both at law firms, I've been in-house at companies, at some some large multinational companies. And probably midway through my career, I started to to have a bit of a mind shift. We always used to be, you know, what are the rules and and how can we best best follow them? And and that's important for any companies and and always should be. But but through experience. and and opportunity we we at times we said, you know, we have a lot as as our business or our client, we have a lot of valuable information perspective that we think those who are are setting the rules and and and creating the frameworks that businesses operate in, they might benefit from some of the things that we're seeing on the ground. And so we started to get engaged in in the discussions both at state, federal, international levels that that kind of shape what what businesses can do or can't do or or or where technology goes. We started to get involved in those discussions. And really, Dolly, for a long time now, that's been an important part of my practice working with companies, working with, with policymakers to, to, to, to, to, to do things cooperatively in a way that that benefits and provides opportunity long term for for everybody. So it's, you know, that's that's kind of my background, how I how I've ended up, there's a lot more To it than that, of course. But I think for purposes of this this discussion, that that that that's good enough. Since I've been here in Utah over the last decade or so, I've been very involved with a lot of our our business communities in in the states, of our trade associations. And and as you mentioned, kind of I I I provide support and and and thoughts on on economic policy in in different sectors. And that that covers a lot of areas. But technology has always been probably the the the key thing. And so we'll we've had a number of roundtables and discussions over the years, both in Utah and in DC, on on what what what what policies make the most sense for our innovative commun our innovative sectors.
speaker-1: Great. Thank you very much for that background. can you also talk a little bit about educational background? And it is pertinent for our younger audiences who are looking to foray into quantum, but not as a quantum physicist, but probably as a quantum policy maker or a legislative person. So can you please give us a little bit about your educational background, Troy?
speaker-0: Yeah, certainly. I, you know, I I went I went to college at at BYU and I was at Brigham Young University, here in Utah. I grew up in a different state, but came here for for college. I was an English major. And and at the time and I think for a lot of years after, people thought, What do you do with an English degree? And and at the time I I felt like I had a couple of choices I could you know, carry on and and maybe go the academic route or or go to law school and and get involved. And I always liked businesses and that that seemed to me like the perfect route for that. So I went to law school. I I will say though that English majors are their time maybe return, their time may be coming. I I've heard a couple twice now on podcasts, you know, people who are are on the AI front, they will say, you know what? Communication is probably the most important thing, almost as important as coding skills are people who can communicate. with with our AI technology to help help that that's kind of the can the the the programming language of the future is probably English, just iterating going back and forth. So who knows? They might have their day. So I went to law school at New York University. and I I went there because I wanted to be in in in New York, frankly, and and where where a lot of things were happening at the time still our course. And so I so that led to working in a in a law firm that that again, like I said, focused on business. So that isn't But I I mentioned that as part of education because that was. I mean, you know, really unlike maybe MBAs where you will go to undergrad, then you'll work in in in industry for a few years, then go back to school. when you're going the law school route frequently, you're just in school until you're in your mid-20s and you don't really have any real life experience and you come out of it and you have to learn quick. And that's and that's what happens this first few years. So that's that's that that's kind of a route. I I think it works works well for those who might not have a scientific background, but love progress and and wanna you wanna want to contribute how they can.
speaker-1: Great. Yeah, sounds very much like a PhD route as well, which is exactly how you described. so let's start with some basics, Troy. And the r the reason is lot of people have lot of and when I say people, we mean technologists, engineers, scientists who do not necessarily work in the policy side or the legal side of things, have a misconception of how policies itself is defined. And and I'm not even talking about quantum policy, but policy in general. So let's start with the basics. What is policy?
speaker-0: Yeah. Wow, good question. I I and frankly, it rarely gets asked. People just kind of have these working assumptions that I don't think are always right. So policy is is an umbrella term. It covers a lot of different things, but I I would say it a way to define it would be to say that it's it's it's it's the framework. it's the the set of like rules of the road, rules of the game, framework for how we're going to operate in any particular area. So You know, it's not just nations that have policies. companies have policies, families can have policies, but they're and you know, and companies will companies have corporate policies and they define things like, you know, who can do what, who's got who's got what responsibilities in the company, who has what authority. And that's all policy to kind of structure everything that happens. So it structures the culture, it structures where the money's going to be invested, it structures how people are going to behave. and and where where where we want to pull back on our efforts. So it's not strategy, but it needs to go hand in hand with strategy. The policies need to need to match what an organization strategy is and support that strategy through creating a good framework. the way people mostly refer to it when they're talking about policy, think of think of government policy. And that means again kind of the the the the rules of the road that That that are established. And we, you know, constitution is how we got started. And there are a lot of policies in there that that are very fixed and that that that you know have been fixed for 250 years. And then we have legislative actions by that the Congress puts out there. We have policies that are created on the executive side, executive orders, you know, by the White House, agencies create policies. and then at the state level, you have kind of similar breakdown. So if all these different groups Creating whether it's regulatory rules or whether it's laws or whether it's whether it's something broader. we have on the legal side, we have, you know, case law. People don't like to talk about, you know, judges making policy. But to an extent they do. That's kind of, you know, common law is is policy that we all follow. And it's developed by by by people fighting a lot over the years, and then kind of rules coming out of that as judges make decisions and And that grows over time. So it comes from a lot of different places, but but it's you know, but it's important to step back and and understand what it is and and and observe where it's headed.
speaker-1: Right. So it is not just regulations. It's much broader than that. That's what you're hinting at.
speaker-0: Yeah, yeah. I think that's that's a super important point that it is not just regulations that companies follow. it's also direction that you know, that that policy makers are taking. And so again, those can be statutes, those can be executive orders, but they can also be rules that are like regulatory side that rules that are developed by by agencies.
speaker-1: So what is the premise under which policies generally exist, right? There has to be a reason why these regulations or guide guardrails or guidelines are set in place. what is a fundamental premise and how is the policy actually developed and implemented?
speaker-0: Yeah, it depends very much on the situation. I like that style of question because you know, if you if you think about where some of our most some of the the policies that perhaps are are the biggest that that we all follow, you know, like our criminal code, for example, that's obviously designed to make people safe. And you start with that premise and go from there. my focus has always been on the business side and and and Technological advancement. And so for that, you you have a lot of different goals that that come into that. Sometimes it's just economic development and prosperity, but national security is always part of the discussion. individual safety is part of it. So so any any policy that's going to be significant, in particular with respect to technology, needs to take into account, I think, some of those overriding interests. And you get there by talking to stakeholders, et cetera. And we can talk more about how policy is made, but I do think it is the facts and circumstances, depending on which which area you're in, kind of drives the premises that that that that you're that you're working operating under as you're developing policy.
speaker-1: Great. So speaking of technology, if you can explain to our audiences who are at wide varieties of expertise, what does quantum policy then mean to you?
speaker-0: it came up the first time I put those two words together, Dolly, was in in a round table you had you had organized, you know, I think maybe a year or so ago. And and quantum is an area where people I don't I don't think you saw those two words together much before that either, frankly, because you you start thinking about policy when something is is When something is changing the the the the status quo in a significant way. So right now there's a heavy debate over what policy should be with respect to artificial intelligence. Maybe that's a great kind of example for us to start with. Ten years ago, no one was talking about policy rel you know, rel but people knew about artificial intelligence. Certainly, I mean it's been around for decades. But the you Turing test was whatever that that came out, but that was pro 19, I don't know, World War Two era. but but now all of a sudden it's a heated debate. And why? Because artificial intelligence is having a profound change to the status quo. So everyone, not just regulators, but people in general are saying, okay, what what do we need? Do we need these type types of guardrails or not? Do we need do we need to let, you know, on the do we want the the markets to be really free or do we want to manage certain things so that, you know, so that the the latest release by You know, by one of the AI companies doesn't everyone's passwords. it's highly relevant right now because it is changing the status quo every it feels like every day, some new development on the AI front. So everyone's talking about it. You what what what should the rules of the road be? with quantum, we aren't we certainly aren't there right now. however, we are at a place, we have been for six, seven years now. Where governments are making decisions about the development of it and and and looking ahead and saying, how do we, what do we need to do to make sure one, our national security is is protected, and and two, that we don't like fall behind on a race for the next most important technology. So I would say the policy discussions so far are still early stage, but but you do see policies being rolled out. you know, the US has As the international quantum initiative that came out six, seven years ago puts little bit of money towards it. Mostly it's towards coordinating the efforts of the different agencies. It's focused on a few important things. Other countries, other nations and groups are also rolling out quantum policies. We can talk about kind of the European system, but but China is the one that does policy the fastest because it, you know, there aren't too many decision makers, not too many cooks in the kitchen there. So they've they've you know committed, I think I saw 17 billion in their most recent, their most recent strategic plan, as they call it. And so I think I think you're seeing governments committing money, which is always part of policy making, but also starting to talk about standards, standard setting and and and what the future might look like. So it's relevant to start talking about quantum policy right now. it really is. It's not as hot and heavy again as like AI is, but but it's an important time to start talking about it.
speaker-1: Because we are also leveraging or actually learning from the AI, how fast AI came into our lives and how the policy was not built around it. We want to be more cautious. is that the sense of urgency in the quantum world for designing the quantum policy starting now?
speaker-0: It's it is urgent because you you want to get you want you want to get ahead of it so that the rules that we set up, that lead to the best outcomes. but at the same time, it's tough to make decisions when we don't know what the future will look like. So, you know, what what do we know? We know that we don't have all the supply chains we need to be able to to to build out a all the quantum infrastructure we would like in the US. So that's something we can focus on right now. And that's that's what that's what you're seeing at the at the national level. we know that it has huge potential to break through, you know, the sort of the the cryptography side of it to you know break through and become a huge cybersecurity risk. But we don't know what the timeframe for that is. we don't know exactly what needs to be done to get there. So do we set up rules that that might backfire? And so it's it's super important to be talking about it. What we actually do is maybe clearer on the supply chain side than it is on on on on the restrictions that we might want to think about putting on on on businesses or on you know or even on on on governmental operators or or states, for example.
speaker-1: Great. So the policy is meant to be in place but also flexible enough to be amended at any point of time based on if it is backfiring or it is helping advance the mission. Am I right in that?
speaker-0: You you are right. the problem is with policymaking that unless you're in a you know, a different type of political system than the one we have, it's hard to do things fast. states can do things relatively fast because there aren't as many stakeholders. It's smaller, they you know, they their legislative processes move a little quicker. So states can move quickly, but some of these things just need to be done at the national level. And while we have a relative, like our systems. faster than than the EU's, for example, which uses kind of a a more bureaucratic, I don't mean that in a negative way, just it's just a very process oriented approach. In the US, ours does have it's kind of a middle ground. It's not autocratic. it's not the White House can't just immediately set all the rules. A lot of stuff requires legislation. And that takes time. Even rulemaking by agencies takes a fair amount of time to put in place. So when you create a rule, you go through the comment process that's required and you create a rule. that's to be flexible. It can be flexible in the implementation and you can maybe pull back on in some areas, but once you've set the framework to replace it takes time. So it's it is it is important to try to get it right the first time around.
speaker-1: Yes. And particularly in emerging tech and tech that has national security implications like quantum, I think it's it's it's good to be strategic and get it right the first time. So which is exactly why. I'm my interest is what kind of questions are the policy makers asking today regarding quantum? Are they? And if they are, what are they asking?
speaker-0: So I think that the the the people who are are asking the questions right now or thinking about it seem to have a few priorities. Number one, I think for a lot of years has been, again, the cybersecurity priority. whatever we do, let's make sure that and there are different ways to solve that, right? You but but let's make sure that the whole, you we're not compromised by some bad act or whether it's foreign or whether it's hacker. You sort of independent operators, et cetera. Let's make sure that we're ready and protected. And you can go about that two different ways. You can try to try to limit the growth of the technology. you can focus all your energy just on making ourselves kind of, you know, quantum proof. And and so I think that has been a dilemma that people have been focused on and talking about. So that's the cybersecurity piece. but but the the other is, you know, we talk about you know, races, arms races or technology races. And on the quantum side, and you you should chime in frankly and and and I mean I'll put part of that question back to you, like where where we're at in that in that in that spectrum of, where there's national security risk. And to to to get there, that that piece is is is kind of the technology development. So that's more the investment, the coordination and and and so I I think those are probably the two the two big and supply chain I guess is maybe the third but it factors into the into the second one. So I'd say those are that I've gathered from just from my my observations. And but but yeah I'm curious your view on that. Like what, you know, what are the factors that are most important and where are we on that spectrum? How close are we to something that could really be, you know, catastrophic?
speaker-1: I would say so the prediction was about if you go back to the post quantum and being quantum proof, right? Twenty thirty was the original QD prediction, which is when all our PII and the personal information would become decrypted. Well obviously our adversaries have what we are calling a harvest now and decrypt later strategy, wherein all our data is already out there. it's just needs the quantum computer and to break the encryption and use it for whatever it is needed. Primarily the risk is for our the data, the that's with the in the defense and also our personal health data, right? Two two very critical infrastructure related data. And that has advanced to twenty twenty eight, which is just Two years from now. So based on the developments with how the quantum computers have actually moved on from physical qubits to logical qubits, and the advancements are happening much faster because of the race. I think it is only going to be happening sooner than later. And so I believe as we are preparing for our for the Quantum readiness, we also have to be thinking about post quantum readiness more importantly, in my opinion, than, you know, quantum and the duty I again, we are going to do another episode on post quantum cryptography, which focuses exactly on this. How do we how do we start this as a parallel process and enable our classical systems to be utilized for post quantum algorithms? We don't need a quantum computer for that. So, which is a blessing in disguise. So Long story short, I think my heart lies in that national security side of things wherein we just have to be prepared sooner than later. the next question I have is who are the types of stakeholders we should be having as part of this conversation at a state level and at a federal level for specifically quantum policy?
speaker-0: Yeah. Yeah. Frankly, every time there is a policy type discussion we always say, look, who who are the stake, who are the stakeholders? I that that same question, we'll do what's called like a stakeholder map, a stakeholder mapping exercise, and we'll we'll say, okay, we've we I've identified this challenge and and who are all the people that we need to talk to? Who are meaning who are the people who are either at the table making the decisions on the policy side or who have influence on them or are ones that are being observed by the policymakers. we'll take that kind of comprehensive approach and try to identify all the right people. And then and then that's step step one. Step two then is whether we can influence it or monitor it, et cetera. And and so so so coming back to your question then with that as kind of a background as to why it's important and useful. I think at the federal level, obviously the agencies and you know, Department of War, Department of Energy are kind of key because they're they're they're they're in some ways in the t tip of the spear in terms of of of implementing, using, defending when when when we get to that 2028 or whenever it is. Those are key stakeholders at the federal level. at the legislators always are because to the extent we need legislation. And I think like to to to to re up on the national qual quantum initiative. I think you know legislators need to do a few things. I think it'd be useful to throw a little more money at it. So legislators are policymakers. It's kind of the core they're they're always they're always key stakeholders. White House, I would say, is this is an important stakeholder that's separate from the agencies. They are kind of, you know, step back a little bit and they can they can coordinate amongst the agencies. So that's good. So that those are on the government side. But then On the industry and academic side, sometimes let's talk about academics for a second. Sometimes the academics, you know, are always universities are always they're always important and relevant, but sometimes more so than others. So for example, AI, I'd say they were probably their their perspective was pretty critical several years ago. It's still, of course, critical, but right now it's the the companies that are that are developing on the forefront and and implementing AI because the technology is here. quantum academics right now are a little more important than than than maybe they will be 20 years from now on on quantum on this issue because it's it's because the science is still being developed and unrolled and and rolled out. So I'd say academics are important stakeholders, universities, and then and then industry of course And again, I would say on the industry side, well, we do have a few companies, the IBM's, you know, Ionic Ionic we have a few a few companies that are so focused on it and our are you know developing the the the quantum computers, et cetera. Those you want those at the table, but you also want the the industry that are that are developing the materials that we'll need the supply chain folks. Any any gr any earth shattering technology, almost everyone becomes a stakeholder to some extent. But I think those are kind of the key ones. I mean, you've you've pulled them around the table several times now and and and so you know, I'm kind of just borrowing off of what I've I've seen you do because you've done it so well and and pulled together. I think those, I don't know, trade associations, of course. W who who am I missing there?
speaker-1: We have we have had IonQ, IBM, Pascal, Moderna, as a quantum companies and few more. we have had universities, all the major universities in Utah, government folks, as you mentioned, legislative folks. So we have had Department of Commerce, everyone involved in that round table. I think that made for a good policy cohort as well, I believe, in that sense. quantum policy is not going to be just about technical or scientific. It is going to be much beyond that because of how fast the field is developing, right? and are there any poor policy issues that may have slowed down innovation? And we can borrow some examples from AI, maybe that could be directly translated to quantum or extrapolated. But are there examples in your mind that you s look back into the history and you see the policy, a poor policy or a bad policy has slowed down innovation or inventions for the nation compared to the other nations and where other nations have surpassed. And the where I'm getting at is the importance of policy in addition to the scientific and technological progress the nation makes is where I'm getting at.
speaker-0: So AI, the policy has been more of a free market approach so far. And I think that has, you know, people will have different opinions, but in some ways that has served us pretty well. The technologies has advanced very fast, many would say too fast. So if there's been so we'll know better in in a few years whether whether we made a mistake, collectively on on AI or not. but if the goal was to progress it as fast as possible, then we've had the right policy approach, which has been hands off, you know, free market. And that that pretty much really has been the approach so far. we just got an executive order on that front, but there's really been very little on the legislative side. In fact, you know, you might be familiar with executive order a year or so ago where where states were talking about implementing restrictions on or you know legislation restrictions on on AI development. And the White House came up very strong and said we are going to create task force at the DOJ that if states are are are implementing policies that slow it down in the wrong way, we're going to actually go after and sue the sue the states, et cetera. So that has been very interesting to watch. And again, we'll know in the future whether that was the right, right, right, right path or not. times but to your question, like where have major mistakes been made? I on the technological front, it's kinda both the internet and AI, the the the approach was kind of hands-off. The internet we provided the internet companies with with certain liability protections. And and that led to in some way, many ways, like the the the incredible growth of social media. So I think to some extent, we probably, if you look at the harms that have that have that that we've seen, to some extent maybe that was that was that was a mistake. I think that could have maybe been a little more nuanced. before that, ever you know, especially all the trade stuff lately, we'll oftentimes look back to the Smooth Hawley Act, which really let you know was one of the key factors that led to led to the depression in the US. And And where would we be right now if if on the technological front, if we hadn't sort of lost a couple, you know, decade or so of progress because of that? So yeah, policies can be disastrous. I think generally, people, if they don't get them right, at least they don't get them terribly wrong. so I think generally we've done pretty well on the technology front. one last thing I'll say that we've done exceptionally well in the US, and it's a mixture of policy. but also a mixture, you know, just just our our our overall economic system. We have through tax incentives, through our educational system, we have promoted well in our in our bank our legal system, our bankruptcy approach, we have promoted entrepreneurialism more so than any other any other nation. And so that has led the reason we're a leader in in the technologies that we lead in now was directly to that. We have, and I think that's an opportunity that that that stakeholds that policymakers will think hard about with quantum as well. Our biggest advantage may not be on the science side, but boy, we're gonna be able to innovate and and and come up with with use cases and models and approaches probably faster than anybody else, just because of that amazing entrepreneurial system we have where we promote entrepreneurs, we fund them, we have you know the most venture capital, the most private equity. anywhere in the world, all centered here. We put them in ecosystems. We are very, very good at that. And that's because we created a system through policy that enables that and promotes that. And and that is probably by far is the nation biggest advantage when it comes to technological development. That'll be the same with with quantum, I have I have no doubt.
speaker-1: Absolutely. And I agree with you fully on that, but I also have a disclaimer because if we if we are so good at innovation and inventions and intellectual property creation, going back to my background in patent law and you have interfaced as a lawyer with intellectual property law as well, is why do then nations you know like China actually have created, ended up creating a lot of intellectual property orders of magnitude? higher than United States in sensing, networking and also in communication and compute as well. Now, every day it's changing, but they are far ahead than United States. So how is that our innovation, spirit of innovation is not translating to what is actually a property, which is the intellectual property?
speaker-0: Yeah, and and are you measuring that like with like number of patents filed, et cetera? Listen.
speaker-1: The number of patents filed in each of these verticals.
speaker-0: Yeah, well, here I I will speak purely on opinion, because I know, you know, I'm not an expert on on the Chinese system. I've, you know, but I've I've had many many clients, both US and Chinese, frankly, that that that that we've supported and worked with over the years. I have a grounds for an opinion. And so I I in my view, I I think what you said is right. There's a significant amount of innovation that happens over there. and here is here is is what I would attribute that to. One thing that China does better than anyone else in the world, I want to have a massive population. That that always that always helps. Two, they fund things through the the scale of investment overall that they're able to make kind of dwarfs you know, we our economy's larger, but they are willing to finance things much more readily, you know, from from the top down than we are. And when they create their the national strategic plans. gads of money are going to flow towards towards towards things. And that doesn't just go to to investing in companies. Frankly, most of it goes to like the the scientific endeavors. So I think that leads to maybe some of the advantages that you've described. Again, this is my opinion. I think it leads to some of those advantages that the, you know, the the hyper financing, the the hyper you know growth in minute manufacturing, I think can definitely lead to that. there's a reason that they haven't quite caught the US and on semiconductors and and in in other key areas is because the entrepreneurialism is they have great entrepreneurs there. I'm not I don't mean that, but I think that the the the the magic that we have with in different parts of the US where every you know where where we have such risk takers, I don't think that that exists in other parts of the world, including China. So Yeah, they have their strengths and we have ours, but I think capitalizing th initiatives is something they do probably better than we do from the top down.
speaker-1: Yeah. So speaking of e national and state level, right? So does federal government appoint like a cohort or a tax task force when when there is an emerging tech? and what does that cohort or the task force comprise of? Like is it several private companies, you know, public private partnership institutes, and how is it done at the state level as well?
speaker-0: Yeah, no, good good question. There there is no in short, there's no like formal blueprint that is applied across the board to everything. different agencies take leadership in different areas. So if it's financial technology, you know, you'll see this the CFPV, Consumer Finance Protection Protection Bureau might lead out in terms of, you know, pulling people together. And they'll they'll they'll have councils, they'll have boards on the trade side. Commerce does a lot of this. they're focused more on Perhaps, you know, on less so on the science side, more so on the on the commercial side, getting getting things to market on the trade side as well. So different agencies will take the lead sometimes. Obviously, National Science Foundation, NIST is important on all this, setting standards and and that's something that that you know, I think there's a key, that's a policy fork. that we oftentimes come to, who's gonna set the standards for for this or that? Is that going to be done at a national level or is it gonna be done by industry or is it gonna or will there be no standard setting? And so so to answer your question is hard. It kind of depends on on the on the technology. I think with quantum we've seen that NIST has has has has taken some some initiative there. But we've also seen the Department of Energy, Department of War, leaving out a couple of others that have each kind of set up these quantum councils, quantum, quantum projects. that's why this this executive order that we're all kind of waiting for. There's been one that a draft was was, you know, kind of secretly shared earlier this year. And that's where the White House would try to grab and coordinate a lot of these different efforts. So so that's I think where we are at the national level. At the state level, If there's going to be something that coordinates a particular technology, it usually starts in the governor's office and they'll they'll, you know, they'll that's been the case in Utah as well, where where ec you know our GoEA or our Office of Economic Opportunity Economic Development has has pulled together and worked worked with you, obviously, to to create some of these these discussions that I think are important before so the stakeholders can all weigh in before before decisions and resources are committed.
speaker-1: Right. Now do you can you talk a little bit about the national level initiatives we are doing as part of our cohort with the governor's office of economic opportunity, we are leading this Utah Quantum initiative. but at the national level there have been several states who have done that, who have done that successfully, but there are federal level initiatives as well. Can you And list few of them and what the purpose was for each of them at high level.
speaker-0: the National Quantum Initiative, and and those that's focused. a little bit more on the commercial side of it and getting people to be looking ahead and saying we're going if assuming the quantum technology comes into its own in a few years, what are we going to do at the places in the in the country that have the manufacturing capability, that have the you know the tech the technology, the venture capital to to to to produce commercial solutions. So that those those quantum centers have been set up in a few places. I think the one out west is you know in New Mexico, Colorado kind of joined together. And there are a couple on the East Coast. And so those there aren't that many of them though. And but those those are you know organized, coordinated on the back of that of that legislation. I think that DARPA is doing a few things, but I so it's kind of go back to what I said before, different agencies are doing different things and and the federal government has become so so big and so differentiated. that you'll see those coming through different different places. I think even the SBA has has some programs that that provide funding for for startups. And so again, you see coming from different directions. But I think the most obvious have been those, you know, like the like the elevate quantum initiatives that have that have come out indirectly from the from that legislation several years ago.
speaker-1: Right. So NQI, right, National Quantum Initiative is almost eight years now ago, I I believe, twenty eighteen. So that was a product of the policy that was done at the national level. Am I right on that?
speaker-0: Exactly right. Yeah. And it it you know, we talked about China can can committing sort of 17 billion for reference and scale. That committed, I think just a little bit over a billion, one, one, maybe, maybe close a little under two billion. And the reauthorization of it would maybe commit a couple more billion. So it sounds like we're not doing nearly as much as, you know, maybe maybe China, but that's not factoring in everything because that is like this executive order, was a little bit of a coordinating effort. and standard setting initiative. And so it's super important again, because we don't we want we need some kind of coordination. However, Department of War, Department of Energy were each have been each sort of out of their budget's been committing close to a billion each year on on on quantum, quantum issues, quantum projects. I don't know what the full number would be that's coming out of out of the federal budget, but it's multiple billion per year.
speaker-1: Great. Now can you shed a little bit of light on Europe as well or any other nation other than United States and China in the quantum race?
speaker-0: Yeah, Europe is always interesting. they I mentioned their their their policy making system a little earlier. the the the the game has all been at the European Union level. And so in Brussels, they they have a system where it's it's very process oriented. In the US, We have our regulatory bodies individually have, I would say, pretty fulsome processes they follow. But because of our democratic system that we can cut through that at times when we need to. And whether it's through the from the executive level or or even in Congress, we can make changes on a dime, but because the politically, it's hard to do big, big throws like that. In the US, those happen very rarely. you see them when there's maybe a crisis like with COVID, our most recent one, all of a sudden you saw some. major legislation. So in Europe, you don't see that real potential, at least from my observation, to do the really big things when there's when there's an emergency. and so what you see are these you see this long regulatory process that rolls out over many years. And people can kind of sit back and and say, yep, I I know I know what's in the hopper. I can see it rolling through the system. They talk to all the stakeholders, they talk to You know, the nations all get kind of a to to chime in, industry gets to chime in. It's this lengthy regulatory process, but it always seems to come this inevitable conclusion of a large regulatory framework. It doesn't ever with few exceptions, exception exceptions, it doesn't really just stop at some point and say, never mind, we're not gonna do that. Just keeps rolling through. And then pretty soon you've got a regulatory framework. That's why, you know, we we s talk about European Union sometimes being the the tech regulator of the world, right? Because they they sort of develop these significant frameworks, whether it's on you know on on on data privacy or or gatekeepers on the on the internet. They they come up with these significant frameworks that regulate policy, right, regulate industry and technology. On the on the quantum side, I haven't seen anything restrictive yet, but but we are what we are seeing is a standard setting approach being rolled out. And in those standards I think they would Europe would love to be the standard setter on quantum for for the world. And we'll see how that shakes out. But they have a good chance of doing it again just because of their their system.
speaker-1: Yes. And also DARPA, as you mentioned before, the QBI quantum benchmarking initiative has been doing fabulous with respect to setting these benchmarks for for the qubit modalities versus the number of qubits. I think most of the advancements in the recent years have accelerated because of that QBI that's led by DARPA, in my opinion. so it's more than just scientific or technological progress, but also it's like a race to economic competitiveness and national security at large. So Troy, one question is, what if we ignore the the quantum policy as a society? what are your thoughts on that?
speaker-0: Yeah, I I mean, and s there there are times when a hands-off approach is is pretty can be can be great, you know, to try and to to have something advance very quickly. But there are times when a hands-off approach actually kills kill kills a technology or kills advancement. And that's because trying to think of a good example and you can help me, but you sometimes if everyone's not heading towards working towards the same, it's not end goal, working towards, you know, using the same standards again. That's maybe that's the best example. Then you come out with all these fractured and different types of products that don't interoperate very well it makes it hard to really innovate because well for i imagine an an internet that didn't have the open open settings that it did, then you wouldn't have internet. You'd have a bunch of kind of small networks to go back to where we used to be in the in the in the in the eighties. And so and so having having something to at least set the rules of the game. can be very helpful in in in benefiting technology and and and speeding it along. So with with quantum, I think the the the the coordination that we're talking about at the federal level would would be quite important there. But beyond that, you know, I think to develop it, then I'll go back to the general principle that you know kind of a hands off tends to lead to the fastest development. The other thing though is there's you know, we touched on basic on the basic science. If the universities don't have the funding to do the basic research, that's not something that companies are as equipped to do maybe they were 50 years ago in the US, but but these days we've there's an expectation that profits will come soon. And so companies over the last several decades have kind of really s narrow the amount of basic research that they do and and rely on on universities for that. So I think when you think of policy as as you know where are we going to invest taxpayer money, we can, you know, we're never going to match China on that front, but we can do we can do a fair bit by by by giving more to our universities with specific, you know, goals around around quantum. That that that would help a lot. And then the other place where we do excel And we what we can do both at the federal and state level is is encouraging more entrepreneurialism. And that can be through through grants, through SBA loans, et cetera. And and so that's a a policy here where with a little bit of money, we can lever a lot of activity. now it doesn't solve it doesn't always get you where you want to go because the market has to be there. And if no one's gonna make money on quantum for 20 years. You can give all the loans you want right now. That's just too long of a time frame for our system, economically for a commercial system.
speaker-1: Great. So basically you're saying having a unified quantum policy would enable or reduce risks of defragmentation, right? Or disintegration of technologies. And kind of designing a policy in a way that everybody sits fits in an ecosystem can strengthen what the product is on the other side. Essentially, it could be a technology or a product itself, right? and so
speaker-0: That's exactly right.
speaker-1: You you just touched upon about these private companies. essentially they are expanding quite a bit, right? within United States and also internationally. let's let's take United States for a for a moment. for example, IO is at in expanding into different states, IBM is in different states. So do they have to be abiding by the federal policy or the state policy? or a combination of both? How does it work for an engineer or a technologist sitting on the side is asking you this question?
speaker-0: what rules do they have to follow? Yeah.
speaker-1: Yes, yes.
speaker-0: Yeah, so maybe it should be, but it's not nuclear technology at the moment. it's not like they're forbidden from you know from developing things to a certain level. we do have export controls, of course. That's a policy as well. Like what what can we share or can't share outside the US? So there I think there's a lot of freedom right now to develop and and try to advance. so I but to be be smart, they should be following what's happening business guys but no I think the engineers as well because quantum right now and correct me if wrong it's not it's a scientific issue but the scientific challenge is less in the theory we know kind of we know how it works at this point the scientific challenge we we we know we know what the computer needs to look like the one that's going to exist here in a few years but we don't have quite yet is the engineering for it And and that's where a lot of the scientific research is. How do we get the right materials that can accommodate it? so that engineering question. So when the engineers are are working towards that, you don't want them going down the wrong, the wrong rabbit hole. So so I think guidance and say, look, this is where this is the engineer, this is the problem that we need to solve right now. And and and and you can see what's happening. So let's pay attention to what's happening at DARPA, what's happening at at NIST, what's happening at the Department of War for that matter, because we don't want to build something that nobody cares about or nobody needs. And and and we can we can sense where the industry, you know, where the industry is heading and where the needs are going to be. Because the biggest customer of all this is likely to be the federal government. so I think yeah, I think following and being close to where those needs are. And that can happen through Direct discussions, you know, you can you can you can monitor from a distance. People I we always recommend, you know, let's let's make a trip to D C every once in a while and sit down with with with people in the agencies and and hear directly from them where they foresee the needs in the future.
speaker-1: Absolutely. for somebody wanting to consider a career, and this is speaking to again people who are trying to upskill to and who are not physicists, right? what are some of the career options you think would be perfect? for s I I'm sure you face the same thing that I do sometimes is having a a cohort or a critical mass of people who think exactly like you. because you come from a unique background looking at the quantum technology, right? So what are some of the advo advice suggestions to the to the younger generation or anyone who is looking to upskill so that they have these unique USP about them to fit into this policy discussion from a legal or a law point of view.
speaker-0: Well, I think it goes back to that stakeholder discussion we had, where if if a technology is big enough, at some point you're gonna need stakeholders from every profession. And you know, what we're seeing on the AI front right now is is at least in the workforce, those who who have been looking ahead, who've been kind of upskilling by just becoming familiar with the tools that are out there, they have an advantage. They can be, they can be more valuable in their jobs, wherever those are. And on and if to your point about you know your question on the policy side, if they needed to be draw drawn in to be part of that stakeholder discussion, their their base profession, whether that's law or or science or you know or or medicine, that can be very relevant to that if they want it to be, but They've got to familiarize themselves with what's going on on the quantum on the on the on the technology side, in this case, quantum. so really any field is going to be relevant. Now, right now, you is an HR expert super relevant for quantum? it's not going to be the first the first round of stakeholders. I mean, we discussed who the who those who those are right now. but they will be relevant at some point. So, you know, if if that's something they'd like to do, be part of that. Now, if you're a student right now and you're looking ahead, then you know you probably ought to be in science or law or or finance. I mean finance, of course, I was both everything. So I I think there are a few areas where you're going to be on the forefront of your interested in quantum but don't have the the science skills. I think there those are some tracks that that'll put you there. so but you know, if you go into medicine, you might not be super relevant to quantum on the first round. But you will be pretty soon after as we're develop as we're using that technology to develop develop new, you know, drugs and pharmaceutical applications, et cetera.
speaker-1: Absolutely. And all of these are use cases, right? Each of these fields. That's how we look at quantum and AI as tools. And I think that reduces the barrier to understanding and entry as well. So if somebody were to study about quantum policy or policy in general, where should they start?
speaker-0: so the most common track is to is to go work with the policymakers. And and that means, you know, start doing internships when you're even in high school. You can go be a a page at the at the Capitol, you can be intern at the Capitol at your state level, you can go to the to go to Congress and do that. in college, you can continue to have those types of internships. political science degree. Political science degree, we'll put you there. a lot of people who are kind of, you know, expert professionals on the policy side, that's the route they take but you don't have to take that route. If you you can also do it through as we've been discussing, you can say what stakeholder do I want to be part of, and and and you can do it through that. You it just takes being part of the conversation, showing up at events, going to going to trade discussions, going to round tables like the ones that that you have hosted. I got there because I was so close to the businesses. And I think that's the advantage that I bring in most most any policy discussion is is I have a better feel than than people that have come up through the political system. I think I have a better feel for for what how things are going to impact businesses and and and you know and our economy. So yeah, you gotta lean into what lean into what you got, right?
speaker-1: Absolutely. And speaking of, we are planning on introducing set of students as part of our roundtables so that they could essentially listen in and understand the inner workings of decision making process just as part of our round tables. I I believe they can benefit immensely from that and so that's that's one improvement going forward. but also
speaker-0: I love that.
speaker-1: with with comfort is probably the biggest enemy to, you know, the growth in my opinion. And so trying to play at the interfaces of, you know, policy and law and technology and law, there are so many things that instead of just being in one one vertical, if we are at the intersection of that Venn diagram, I think they can find themselves in many of these discussions. And one saying goes, right, that if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. So it is something very important to shape the quantum policy at large. So one last question. What is the message you have for business leaders, policymakers, educators, and technologists to take away from this discussion today?
speaker-0: I think there's the general lesson of you just said it very well, that that that famous saying if if you're not if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. So if there's an area that you think you're that's gonna be relevant for your company, then you know, then you've got to just get engaged or have someone be engaged on your behalf and and not you no one can be doing everything at once, but but you can become engaged. how relevant will quantum be for your business. And and I think that you and I believe that like AI, it'll eventually become relevant to everybody. if you're a plumber, maybe it's not super relevant for for a few years. But if you're in, if you're almost anything else, you're especially if you're large organization, you need like the quantum readiness that you described that I know that you're kind of leader in real, real knowledge holder Every organization needs to be thinking about quantum readiness and talking to yeah, to someone like you to make sure that they're there because in a couple of years, their whole franchise could be at risk if they're not ready.
speaker-1: Great, great. So Troy, thank you very much for joining us today and for sharing your thoughts. Our conversation really highlighted the future of quantum technologies. is not just about scientific breakthroughs and technical innovation, but also about policies, partnerships, workforce, inf investment, and ecosystem development needed to translate capability into impact. And thanks again for joining and And everyone who has joined us for this quantum ecosystem conversation. So any final thoughts you have for our audiences, please feel free to share.
speaker-0: Just just a big thank you. I think we've covered a lot of good territory. I think this is a great introductory to the whole canvas of of you know where things are going and on on the policy side and and how to jump in. thanks, thanks for the excellent questions and the opportunity, Dolly.
speaker-1: Thank you so much for joining us, Troy.
speaker-0: Yeah, you bet. Dolly, thanks so much for the opportunity to be here first. And thanks so much for your leadership in this area. I think you've got a lot of people, including me, thinking a lot harder about these important these these important things than than otherwise would be the case. So so again, thank thanks again. yeah, my background, I'm I'm an attorney. I, you know, I've been practicing about 30 years now, and I started and still am what we call a corporate lawyer, and that's That that can mean a lot of different things. It's a general, a general term. It includes things like capital markets work where companies are trying to go public or or you know securities securities law, which is where I started many, many years ago in a New York firm. And then it includes also mergers and acquisitions. It includes basic commercial work the companies do as they're doing deals between each other. It includes a lot on the on the business side, kind of business business law, it's most it's most general. And so I didn't so I didn't start doing policy work on Capitol Hill, anything like that. I've always been close to businesses. And I've been both at law firms, I've been in-house at companies, at some some large multinational companies. And probably midway through my career, I started to to have a bit of a mind shift. We always used to be, you know, what are the rules and and how can we best best follow them? And and that's important for any companies and and always should be. But but through experience. and and opportunity we we at times we said, you know, we have a lot as as our business or our client, we have a lot of valuable information perspective that we think those who are are setting the rules and and and creating the frameworks that businesses operate in, they might benefit from some of the things that we're seeing on the ground. And so we started to get engaged in in the discussions both at state, federal, international levels that that kind of shape what what businesses can do or can't do or or or where technology goes. We started to get involved in those discussions. And really, Dolly, for a long time now, that's been an important part of my practice working with companies, working with, with policymakers to, to, to, to, to, to do things cooperatively in a way that that benefits and provides opportunity long term for for everybody. So it's, you know, that's that's kind of my background, how I how I've ended up, there's a lot more To it than that, of course. But I think for purposes of this this discussion, that that that that's good enough. Since I've been here in Utah over the last decade or so, I've been very involved with a lot of our our business communities in in the states, of our trade associations. And and as you mentioned, kind of I I I provide support and and and thoughts on on economic policy in in different sectors. And that that covers a lot of areas. But technology has always been probably the the the key thing. And so we'll we've had a number of roundtables and discussions over the years, both in Utah and in DC, on on what what what what policies make the most sense for our innovative commun our innovative sectors.
speaker-1: Great. Thank you very much for that background. can you also talk a little bit about educational background? And it is pertinent for our younger audiences who are looking to foray into quantum, but not as a quantum physicist, but probably as a quantum policy maker or a legislative person. So can you please give us a little bit about your educational background, Troy?
speaker-0: Yeah, certainly. I, you know, I I went I went to college at at BYU and I was at Brigham Young University, here in Utah. I grew up in a different state, but came here for for college. I was an English major. And and at the time and I think for a lot of years after, people thought, What do you do with an English degree? And and at the time I I felt like I had a couple of choices I could you know, carry on and and maybe go the academic route or or go to law school and and get involved. And I always liked businesses and that that seemed to me like the perfect route for that. So I went to law school. I I will say though that English majors are their time maybe return, their time may be coming. I I've heard a couple twice now on podcasts, you know, people who are are on the AI front, they will say, you know what? Communication is probably the most important thing, almost as important as coding skills are people who can communicate. with with our AI technology to help help that that's kind of the can the the the programming language of the future is probably English, just iterating going back and forth. So who knows? They might have their day. So I went to law school at New York University. and I I went there because I wanted to be in in in New York, frankly, and and where where a lot of things were happening at the time still our course. And so I so that led to working in a in a law firm that that again, like I said, focused on business. So that isn't But I I mentioned that as part of education because that was. I mean, you know, really unlike maybe MBAs where you will go to undergrad, then you'll work in in in industry for a few years, then go back to school. when you're going the law school route frequently, you're just in school until you're in your mid-20s and you don't really have any real life experience and you come out of it and you have to learn quick. And that's and that's what happens this first few years. So that's that's that that's kind of a route. I I think it works works well for those who might not have a scientific background, but love progress and and wanna you wanna want to contribute how they can.
speaker-1: Great. Yeah, sounds very much like a PhD route as well, which is exactly how you described. so let's start with some basics, Troy. And the r the reason is lot of people have lot of and when I say people, we mean technologists, engineers, scientists who do not necessarily work in the policy side or the legal side of things, have a misconception of how policies itself is defined. And and I'm not even talking about quantum policy, but policy in general. So let's start with the basics. What is policy?
speaker-0: Yeah. Wow, good question. I I and frankly, it rarely gets asked. People just kind of have these working assumptions that I don't think are always right. So policy is is an umbrella term. It covers a lot of different things, but I I would say it a way to define it would be to say that it's it's it's it's the framework. it's the the set of like rules of the road, rules of the game, framework for how we're going to operate in any particular area. So You know, it's not just nations that have policies. companies have policies, families can have policies, but they're and you know, and companies will companies have corporate policies and they define things like, you know, who can do what, who's got who's got what responsibilities in the company, who has what authority. And that's all policy to kind of structure everything that happens. So it structures the culture, it structures where the money's going to be invested, it structures how people are going to behave. and and where where where we want to pull back on our efforts. So it's not strategy, but it needs to go hand in hand with strategy. The policies need to need to match what an organization strategy is and support that strategy through creating a good framework. the way people mostly refer to it when they're talking about policy, think of think of government policy. And that means again kind of the the the the rules of the road that That that are established. And we, you know, constitution is how we got started. And there are a lot of policies in there that that are very fixed and that that that you know have been fixed for 250 years. And then we have legislative actions by that the Congress puts out there. We have policies that are created on the executive side, executive orders, you know, by the White House, agencies create policies. and then at the state level, you have kind of similar breakdown. So if all these different groups Creating whether it's regulatory rules or whether it's laws or whether it's whether it's something broader. we have on the legal side, we have, you know, case law. People don't like to talk about, you know, judges making policy. But to an extent they do. That's kind of, you know, common law is is policy that we all follow. And it's developed by by by people fighting a lot over the years, and then kind of rules coming out of that as judges make decisions and And that grows over time. So it comes from a lot of different places, but but it's you know, but it's important to step back and and understand what it is and and and observe where it's headed.
speaker-1: Right. So it is not just regulations. It's much broader than that. That's what you're hinting at.
speaker-0: Yeah, yeah. I think that's that's a super important point that it is not just regulations that companies follow. it's also direction that you know, that that policy makers are taking. And so again, those can be statutes, those can be executive orders, but they can also be rules that are like regulatory side that rules that are developed by by agencies.
speaker-1: So what is the premise under which policies generally exist, right? There has to be a reason why these regulations or guide guardrails or guidelines are set in place. what is a fundamental premise and how is the policy actually developed and implemented?
speaker-0: Yeah, it depends very much on the situation. I like that style of question because you know, if you if you think about where some of our most some of the the policies that perhaps are are the biggest that that we all follow, you know, like our criminal code, for example, that's obviously designed to make people safe. And you start with that premise and go from there. my focus has always been on the business side and and and Technological advancement. And so for that, you you have a lot of different goals that that come into that. Sometimes it's just economic development and prosperity, but national security is always part of the discussion. individual safety is part of it. So so any any policy that's going to be significant, in particular with respect to technology, needs to take into account, I think, some of those overriding interests. And you get there by talking to stakeholders, et cetera. And we can talk more about how policy is made, but I do think it is the facts and circumstances, depending on which which area you're in, kind of drives the premises that that that that you're that you're working operating under as you're developing policy.
speaker-1: Great. So speaking of technology, if you can explain to our audiences who are at wide varieties of expertise, what does quantum policy then mean to you?
speaker-0: it came up the first time I put those two words together, Dolly, was in in a round table you had you had organized, you know, I think maybe a year or so ago. And and quantum is an area where people I don't I don't think you saw those two words together much before that either, frankly, because you you start thinking about policy when something is is When something is changing the the the the status quo in a significant way. So right now there's a heavy debate over what policy should be with respect to artificial intelligence. Maybe that's a great kind of example for us to start with. Ten years ago, no one was talking about policy rel you know, rel but people knew about artificial intelligence. Certainly, I mean it's been around for decades. But the you Turing test was whatever that that came out, but that was pro 19, I don't know, World War Two era. but but now all of a sudden it's a heated debate. And why? Because artificial intelligence is having a profound change to the status quo. So everyone, not just regulators, but people in general are saying, okay, what what do we need? Do we need these type types of guardrails or not? Do we need do we need to let, you know, on the do we want the the markets to be really free or do we want to manage certain things so that, you know, so that the the latest release by You know, by one of the AI companies doesn't everyone's passwords. it's highly relevant right now because it is changing the status quo every it feels like every day, some new development on the AI front. So everyone's talking about it. You what what what should the rules of the road be? with quantum, we aren't we certainly aren't there right now. however, we are at a place, we have been for six, seven years now. Where governments are making decisions about the development of it and and and looking ahead and saying, how do we, what do we need to do to make sure one, our national security is is protected, and and two, that we don't like fall behind on a race for the next most important technology. So I would say the policy discussions so far are still early stage, but but you do see policies being rolled out. you know, the US has As the international quantum initiative that came out six, seven years ago puts little bit of money towards it. Mostly it's towards coordinating the efforts of the different agencies. It's focused on a few important things. Other countries, other nations and groups are also rolling out quantum policies. We can talk about kind of the European system, but but China is the one that does policy the fastest because it, you know, there aren't too many decision makers, not too many cooks in the kitchen there. So they've they've you know committed, I think I saw 17 billion in their most recent, their most recent strategic plan, as they call it. And so I think I think you're seeing governments committing money, which is always part of policy making, but also starting to talk about standards, standard setting and and and what the future might look like. So it's relevant to start talking about quantum policy right now. it really is. It's not as hot and heavy again as like AI is, but but it's an important time to start talking about it.
speaker-1: Because we are also leveraging or actually learning from the AI, how fast AI came into our lives and how the policy was not built around it. We want to be more cautious. is that the sense of urgency in the quantum world for designing the quantum policy starting now?
speaker-0: It's it is urgent because you you want to get you want you want to get ahead of it so that the rules that we set up, that lead to the best outcomes. but at the same time, it's tough to make decisions when we don't know what the future will look like. So, you know, what what do we know? We know that we don't have all the supply chains we need to be able to to to build out a all the quantum infrastructure we would like in the US. So that's something we can focus on right now. And that's that's what that's what you're seeing at the at the national level. we know that it has huge potential to break through, you know, the sort of the the cryptography side of it to you know break through and become a huge cybersecurity risk. But we don't know what the timeframe for that is. we don't know exactly what needs to be done to get there. So do we set up rules that that might backfire? And so it's it's super important to be talking about it. What we actually do is maybe clearer on the supply chain side than it is on on on on the restrictions that we might want to think about putting on on on businesses or on you know or even on on on governmental operators or or states, for example.
speaker-1: Great. So the policy is meant to be in place but also flexible enough to be amended at any point of time based on if it is backfiring or it is helping advance the mission. Am I right in that?
speaker-0: You you are right. the problem is with policymaking that unless you're in a you know, a different type of political system than the one we have, it's hard to do things fast. states can do things relatively fast because there aren't as many stakeholders. It's smaller, they you know, they their legislative processes move a little quicker. So states can move quickly, but some of these things just need to be done at the national level. And while we have a relative, like our systems. faster than than the EU's, for example, which uses kind of a a more bureaucratic, I don't mean that in a negative way, just it's just a very process oriented approach. In the US, ours does have it's kind of a middle ground. It's not autocratic. it's not the White House can't just immediately set all the rules. A lot of stuff requires legislation. And that takes time. Even rulemaking by agencies takes a fair amount of time to put in place. So when you create a rule, you go through the comment process that's required and you create a rule. that's to be flexible. It can be flexible in the implementation and you can maybe pull back on in some areas, but once you've set the framework to replace it takes time. So it's it is it is important to try to get it right the first time around.
speaker-1: Yes. And particularly in emerging tech and tech that has national security implications like quantum, I think it's it's it's good to be strategic and get it right the first time. So which is exactly why. I'm my interest is what kind of questions are the policy makers asking today regarding quantum? Are they? And if they are, what are they asking?
speaker-0: So I think that the the the people who are are asking the questions right now or thinking about it seem to have a few priorities. Number one, I think for a lot of years has been, again, the cybersecurity priority. whatever we do, let's make sure that and there are different ways to solve that, right? You but but let's make sure that the whole, you we're not compromised by some bad act or whether it's foreign or whether it's hacker. You sort of independent operators, et cetera. Let's make sure that we're ready and protected. And you can go about that two different ways. You can try to try to limit the growth of the technology. you can focus all your energy just on making ourselves kind of, you know, quantum proof. And and so I think that has been a dilemma that people have been focused on and talking about. So that's the cybersecurity piece. but but the the other is, you know, we talk about you know, races, arms races or technology races. And on the quantum side, and you you should chime in frankly and and and I mean I'll put part of that question back to you, like where where we're at in that in that in that spectrum of, where there's national security risk. And to to to get there, that that piece is is is kind of the technology development. So that's more the investment, the coordination and and and so I I think those are probably the two the two big and supply chain I guess is maybe the third but it factors into the into the second one. So I'd say those are that I've gathered from just from my my observations. And but but yeah I'm curious your view on that. Like what, you know, what are the factors that are most important and where are we on that spectrum? How close are we to something that could really be, you know, catastrophic?
speaker-1: I would say so the prediction was about if you go back to the post quantum and being quantum proof, right? Twenty thirty was the original QD prediction, which is when all our PII and the personal information would become decrypted. Well obviously our adversaries have what we are calling a harvest now and decrypt later strategy, wherein all our data is already out there. it's just needs the quantum computer and to break the encryption and use it for whatever it is needed. Primarily the risk is for our the data, the that's with the in the defense and also our personal health data, right? Two two very critical infrastructure related data. And that has advanced to twenty twenty eight, which is just Two years from now. So based on the developments with how the quantum computers have actually moved on from physical qubits to logical qubits, and the advancements are happening much faster because of the race. I think it is only going to be happening sooner than later. And so I believe as we are preparing for our for the Quantum readiness, we also have to be thinking about post quantum readiness more importantly, in my opinion, than, you know, quantum and the duty I again, we are going to do another episode on post quantum cryptography, which focuses exactly on this. How do we how do we start this as a parallel process and enable our classical systems to be utilized for post quantum algorithms? We don't need a quantum computer for that. So, which is a blessing in disguise. So Long story short, I think my heart lies in that national security side of things wherein we just have to be prepared sooner than later. the next question I have is who are the types of stakeholders we should be having as part of this conversation at a state level and at a federal level for specifically quantum policy?
speaker-0: Yeah. Yeah. Frankly, every time there is a policy type discussion we always say, look, who who are the stake, who are the stakeholders? I that that same question, we'll do what's called like a stakeholder map, a stakeholder mapping exercise, and we'll we'll say, okay, we've we I've identified this challenge and and who are all the people that we need to talk to? Who are meaning who are the people who are either at the table making the decisions on the policy side or who have influence on them or are ones that are being observed by the policymakers. we'll take that kind of comprehensive approach and try to identify all the right people. And then and then that's step step one. Step two then is whether we can influence it or monitor it, et cetera. And and so so so coming back to your question then with that as kind of a background as to why it's important and useful. I think at the federal level, obviously the agencies and you know, Department of War, Department of Energy are kind of key because they're they're they're they're in some ways in the t tip of the spear in terms of of of implementing, using, defending when when when we get to that 2028 or whenever it is. Those are key stakeholders at the federal level. at the legislators always are because to the extent we need legislation. And I think like to to to to re up on the national qual quantum initiative. I think you know legislators need to do a few things. I think it'd be useful to throw a little more money at it. So legislators are policymakers. It's kind of the core they're they're always they're always key stakeholders. White House, I would say, is this is an important stakeholder that's separate from the agencies. They are kind of, you know, step back a little bit and they can they can coordinate amongst the agencies. So that's good. So that those are on the government side. But then On the industry and academic side, sometimes let's talk about academics for a second. Sometimes the academics, you know, are always universities are always they're always important and relevant, but sometimes more so than others. So for example, AI, I'd say they were probably their their perspective was pretty critical several years ago. It's still, of course, critical, but right now it's the the companies that are that are developing on the forefront and and implementing AI because the technology is here. quantum academics right now are a little more important than than than maybe they will be 20 years from now on on quantum on this issue because it's it's because the science is still being developed and unrolled and and rolled out. So I'd say academics are important stakeholders, universities, and then and then industry of course And again, I would say on the industry side, well, we do have a few companies, the IBM's, you know, Ionic Ionic we have a few a few companies that are so focused on it and our are you know developing the the the quantum computers, et cetera. Those you want those at the table, but you also want the the industry that are that are developing the materials that we'll need the supply chain folks. Any any gr any earth shattering technology, almost everyone becomes a stakeholder to some extent. But I think those are kind of the key ones. I mean, you've you've pulled them around the table several times now and and and so you know, I'm kind of just borrowing off of what I've I've seen you do because you've done it so well and and pulled together. I think those, I don't know, trade associations, of course. W who who am I missing there?
speaker-1: We have we have had IonQ, IBM, Pascal, Moderna, as a quantum companies and few more. we have had universities, all the major universities in Utah, government folks, as you mentioned, legislative folks. So we have had Department of Commerce, everyone involved in that round table. I think that made for a good policy cohort as well, I believe, in that sense. quantum policy is not going to be just about technical or scientific. It is going to be much beyond that because of how fast the field is developing, right? and are there any poor policy issues that may have slowed down innovation? And we can borrow some examples from AI, maybe that could be directly translated to quantum or extrapolated. But are there examples in your mind that you s look back into the history and you see the policy, a poor policy or a bad policy has slowed down innovation or inventions for the nation compared to the other nations and where other nations have surpassed. And the where I'm getting at is the importance of policy in addition to the scientific and technological progress the nation makes is where I'm getting at.
speaker-0: So AI, the policy has been more of a free market approach so far. And I think that has, you know, people will have different opinions, but in some ways that has served us pretty well. The technologies has advanced very fast, many would say too fast. So if there's been so we'll know better in in a few years whether whether we made a mistake, collectively on on AI or not. but if the goal was to progress it as fast as possible, then we've had the right policy approach, which has been hands off, you know, free market. And that that pretty much really has been the approach so far. we just got an executive order on that front, but there's really been very little on the legislative side. In fact, you know, you might be familiar with executive order a year or so ago where where states were talking about implementing restrictions on or you know legislation restrictions on on AI development. And the White House came up very strong and said we are going to create task force at the DOJ that if states are are are implementing policies that slow it down in the wrong way, we're going to actually go after and sue the sue the states, et cetera. So that has been very interesting to watch. And again, we'll know in the future whether that was the right, right, right, right path or not. times but to your question, like where have major mistakes been made? I on the technological front, it's kinda both the internet and AI, the the the approach was kind of hands-off. The internet we provided the internet companies with with certain liability protections. And and that led to in some way, many ways, like the the the incredible growth of social media. So I think to some extent, we probably, if you look at the harms that have that have that that we've seen, to some extent maybe that was that was that was a mistake. I think that could have maybe been a little more nuanced. before that, ever you know, especially all the trade stuff lately, we'll oftentimes look back to the Smooth Hawley Act, which really let you know was one of the key factors that led to led to the depression in the US. And And where would we be right now if if on the technological front, if we hadn't sort of lost a couple, you know, decade or so of progress because of that? So yeah, policies can be disastrous. I think generally, people, if they don't get them right, at least they don't get them terribly wrong. so I think generally we've done pretty well on the technology front. one last thing I'll say that we've done exceptionally well in the US, and it's a mixture of policy. but also a mixture, you know, just just our our our overall economic system. We have through tax incentives, through our educational system, we have promoted well in our in our bank our legal system, our bankruptcy approach, we have promoted entrepreneurialism more so than any other any other nation. And so that has led the reason we're a leader in in the technologies that we lead in now was directly to that. We have, and I think that's an opportunity that that that stakeholds that policymakers will think hard about with quantum as well. Our biggest advantage may not be on the science side, but boy, we're gonna be able to innovate and and and come up with with use cases and models and approaches probably faster than anybody else, just because of that amazing entrepreneurial system we have where we promote entrepreneurs, we fund them, we have you know the most venture capital, the most private equity. anywhere in the world, all centered here. We put them in ecosystems. We are very, very good at that. And that's because we created a system through policy that enables that and promotes that. And and that is probably by far is the nation biggest advantage when it comes to technological development. That'll be the same with with quantum, I have I have no doubt.
speaker-1: Absolutely. And I agree with you fully on that, but I also have a disclaimer because if we if we are so good at innovation and inventions and intellectual property creation, going back to my background in patent law and you have interfaced as a lawyer with intellectual property law as well, is why do then nations you know like China actually have created, ended up creating a lot of intellectual property orders of magnitude? higher than United States in sensing, networking and also in communication and compute as well. Now, every day it's changing, but they are far ahead than United States. So how is that our innovation, spirit of innovation is not translating to what is actually a property, which is the intellectual property?
speaker-0: Yeah, and and are you measuring that like with like number of patents filed, et cetera? Listen.
speaker-1: The number of patents filed in each of these verticals.
speaker-0: Yeah, well, here I I will speak purely on opinion, because I know, you know, I'm not an expert on on the Chinese system. I've, you know, but I've I've had many many clients, both US and Chinese, frankly, that that that that we've supported and worked with over the years. I have a grounds for an opinion. And so I I in my view, I I think what you said is right. There's a significant amount of innovation that happens over there. and here is here is is what I would attribute that to. One thing that China does better than anyone else in the world, I want to have a massive population. That that always that always helps. Two, they fund things through the the scale of investment overall that they're able to make kind of dwarfs you know, we our economy's larger, but they are willing to finance things much more readily, you know, from from the top down than we are. And when they create their the national strategic plans. gads of money are going to flow towards towards towards things. And that doesn't just go to to investing in companies. Frankly, most of it goes to like the the scientific endeavors. So I think that leads to maybe some of the advantages that you've described. Again, this is my opinion. I think it leads to some of those advantages that the, you know, the the hyper financing, the the hyper you know growth in minute manufacturing, I think can definitely lead to that. there's a reason that they haven't quite caught the US and on semiconductors and and in in other key areas is because the entrepreneurialism is they have great entrepreneurs there. I'm not I don't mean that, but I think that the the the the magic that we have with in different parts of the US where every you know where where we have such risk takers, I don't think that that exists in other parts of the world, including China. So Yeah, they have their strengths and we have ours, but I think capitalizing th initiatives is something they do probably better than we do from the top down.
speaker-1: Yeah. So speaking of e national and state level, right? So does federal government appoint like a cohort or a tax task force when when there is an emerging tech? and what does that cohort or the task force comprise of? Like is it several private companies, you know, public private partnership institutes, and how is it done at the state level as well?
speaker-0: Yeah, no, good good question. There there is no in short, there's no like formal blueprint that is applied across the board to everything. different agencies take leadership in different areas. So if it's financial technology, you know, you'll see this the CFPV, Consumer Finance Protection Protection Bureau might lead out in terms of, you know, pulling people together. And they'll they'll they'll have councils, they'll have boards on the trade side. Commerce does a lot of this. they're focused more on Perhaps, you know, on less so on the science side, more so on the on the commercial side, getting getting things to market on the trade side as well. So different agencies will take the lead sometimes. Obviously, National Science Foundation, NIST is important on all this, setting standards and and that's something that that you know, I think there's a key, that's a policy fork. that we oftentimes come to, who's gonna set the standards for for this or that? Is that going to be done at a national level or is it gonna be done by industry or is it gonna or will there be no standard setting? And so so to answer your question is hard. It kind of depends on on the on the technology. I think with quantum we've seen that NIST has has has has taken some some initiative there. But we've also seen the Department of Energy, Department of War, leaving out a couple of others that have each kind of set up these quantum councils, quantum, quantum projects. that's why this this executive order that we're all kind of waiting for. There's been one that a draft was was, you know, kind of secretly shared earlier this year. And that's where the White House would try to grab and coordinate a lot of these different efforts. So so that's I think where we are at the national level. At the state level, If there's going to be something that coordinates a particular technology, it usually starts in the governor's office and they'll they'll, you know, they'll that's been the case in Utah as well, where where ec you know our GoEA or our Office of Economic Opportunity Economic Development has has pulled together and worked worked with you, obviously, to to create some of these these discussions that I think are important before so the stakeholders can all weigh in before before decisions and resources are committed.
speaker-1: Right. Now do you can you talk a little bit about the national level initiatives we are doing as part of our cohort with the governor's office of economic opportunity, we are leading this Utah Quantum initiative. but at the national level there have been several states who have done that, who have done that successfully, but there are federal level initiatives as well. Can you And list few of them and what the purpose was for each of them at high level.
speaker-0: the National Quantum Initiative, and and those that's focused. a little bit more on the commercial side of it and getting people to be looking ahead and saying we're going if assuming the quantum technology comes into its own in a few years, what are we going to do at the places in the in the country that have the manufacturing capability, that have the you know the tech the technology, the venture capital to to to to produce commercial solutions. So that those those quantum centers have been set up in a few places. I think the one out west is you know in New Mexico, Colorado kind of joined together. And there are a couple on the East Coast. And so those there aren't that many of them though. And but those those are you know organized, coordinated on the back of that of that legislation. I think that DARPA is doing a few things, but I so it's kind of go back to what I said before, different agencies are doing different things and and the federal government has become so so big and so differentiated. that you'll see those coming through different different places. I think even the SBA has has some programs that that provide funding for for startups. And so again, you see coming from different directions. But I think the most obvious have been those, you know, like the like the elevate quantum initiatives that have that have come out indirectly from the from that legislation several years ago.
speaker-1: Right. So NQI, right, National Quantum Initiative is almost eight years now ago, I I believe, twenty eighteen. So that was a product of the policy that was done at the national level. Am I right on that?
speaker-0: Exactly right. Yeah. And it it you know, we talked about China can can committing sort of 17 billion for reference and scale. That committed, I think just a little bit over a billion, one, one, maybe, maybe close a little under two billion. And the reauthorization of it would maybe commit a couple more billion. So it sounds like we're not doing nearly as much as, you know, maybe maybe China, but that's not factoring in everything because that is like this executive order, was a little bit of a coordinating effort. and standard setting initiative. And so it's super important again, because we don't we want we need some kind of coordination. However, Department of War, Department of Energy were each have been each sort of out of their budget's been committing close to a billion each year on on on quantum, quantum issues, quantum projects. I don't know what the full number would be that's coming out of out of the federal budget, but it's multiple billion per year.
speaker-1: Great. Now can you shed a little bit of light on Europe as well or any other nation other than United States and China in the quantum race?
speaker-0: Yeah, Europe is always interesting. they I mentioned their their their policy making system a little earlier. the the the the game has all been at the European Union level. And so in Brussels, they they have a system where it's it's very process oriented. In the US, We have our regulatory bodies individually have, I would say, pretty fulsome processes they follow. But because of our democratic system that we can cut through that at times when we need to. And whether it's through the from the executive level or or even in Congress, we can make changes on a dime, but because the politically, it's hard to do big, big throws like that. In the US, those happen very rarely. you see them when there's maybe a crisis like with COVID, our most recent one, all of a sudden you saw some. major legislation. So in Europe, you don't see that real potential, at least from my observation, to do the really big things when there's when there's an emergency. and so what you see are these you see this long regulatory process that rolls out over many years. And people can kind of sit back and and say, yep, I I know I know what's in the hopper. I can see it rolling through the system. They talk to all the stakeholders, they talk to You know, the nations all get kind of a to to chime in, industry gets to chime in. It's this lengthy regulatory process, but it always seems to come this inevitable conclusion of a large regulatory framework. It doesn't ever with few exceptions, exception exceptions, it doesn't really just stop at some point and say, never mind, we're not gonna do that. Just keeps rolling through. And then pretty soon you've got a regulatory framework. That's why, you know, we we s talk about European Union sometimes being the the tech regulator of the world, right? Because they they sort of develop these significant frameworks, whether it's on you know on on on data privacy or or gatekeepers on the on the internet. They they come up with these significant frameworks that regulate policy, right, regulate industry and technology. On the on the quantum side, I haven't seen anything restrictive yet, but but we are what we are seeing is a standard setting approach being rolled out. And in those standards I think they would Europe would love to be the standard setter on quantum for for the world. And we'll see how that shakes out. But they have a good chance of doing it again just because of their their system.
speaker-1: Yes. And also DARPA, as you mentioned before, the QBI quantum benchmarking initiative has been doing fabulous with respect to setting these benchmarks for for the qubit modalities versus the number of qubits. I think most of the advancements in the recent years have accelerated because of that QBI that's led by DARPA, in my opinion. so it's more than just scientific or technological progress, but also it's like a race to economic competitiveness and national security at large. So Troy, one question is, what if we ignore the the quantum policy as a society? what are your thoughts on that?
speaker-0: Yeah, I I mean, and s there there are times when a hands-off approach is is pretty can be can be great, you know, to try and to to have something advance very quickly. But there are times when a hands-off approach actually kills kill kills a technology or kills advancement. And that's because trying to think of a good example and you can help me, but you sometimes if everyone's not heading towards working towards the same, it's not end goal, working towards, you know, using the same standards again. That's maybe that's the best example. Then you come out with all these fractured and different types of products that don't interoperate very well it makes it hard to really innovate because well for i imagine an an internet that didn't have the open open settings that it did, then you wouldn't have internet. You'd have a bunch of kind of small networks to go back to where we used to be in the in the in the in the eighties. And so and so having having something to at least set the rules of the game. can be very helpful in in in benefiting technology and and and speeding it along. So with with quantum, I think the the the the coordination that we're talking about at the federal level would would be quite important there. But beyond that, you know, I think to develop it, then I'll go back to the general principle that you know kind of a hands off tends to lead to the fastest development. The other thing though is there's you know, we touched on basic on the basic science. If the universities don't have the funding to do the basic research, that's not something that companies are as equipped to do maybe they were 50 years ago in the US, but but these days we've there's an expectation that profits will come soon. And so companies over the last several decades have kind of really s narrow the amount of basic research that they do and and rely on on universities for that. So I think when you think of policy as as you know where are we going to invest taxpayer money, we can, you know, we're never going to match China on that front, but we can do we can do a fair bit by by by giving more to our universities with specific, you know, goals around around quantum. That that that would help a lot. And then the other place where we do excel And we what we can do both at the federal and state level is is encouraging more entrepreneurialism. And that can be through through grants, through SBA loans, et cetera. And and so that's a a policy here where with a little bit of money, we can lever a lot of activity. now it doesn't solve it doesn't always get you where you want to go because the market has to be there. And if no one's gonna make money on quantum for 20 years. You can give all the loans you want right now. That's just too long of a time frame for our system, economically for a commercial system.
speaker-1: Great. So basically you're saying having a unified quantum policy would enable or reduce risks of defragmentation, right? Or disintegration of technologies. And kind of designing a policy in a way that everybody sits fits in an ecosystem can strengthen what the product is on the other side. Essentially, it could be a technology or a product itself, right? and so
speaker-0: That's exactly right.
speaker-1: You you just touched upon about these private companies. essentially they are expanding quite a bit, right? within United States and also internationally. let's let's take United States for a for a moment. for example, IO is at in expanding into different states, IBM is in different states. So do they have to be abiding by the federal policy or the state policy? or a combination of both? How does it work for an engineer or a technologist sitting on the side is asking you this question?
speaker-0: what rules do they have to follow? Yeah.
speaker-1: Yes, yes.
speaker-0: Yeah, so maybe it should be, but it's not nuclear technology at the moment. it's not like they're forbidden from you know from developing things to a certain level. we do have export controls, of course. That's a policy as well. Like what what can we share or can't share outside the US? So there I think there's a lot of freedom right now to develop and and try to advance. so I but to be be smart, they should be following what's happening business guys but no I think the engineers as well because quantum right now and correct me if wrong it's not it's a scientific issue but the scientific challenge is less in the theory we know kind of we know how it works at this point the scientific challenge we we we know we know what the computer needs to look like the one that's going to exist here in a few years but we don't have quite yet is the engineering for it And and that's where a lot of the scientific research is. How do we get the right materials that can accommodate it? so that engineering question. So when the engineers are are working towards that, you don't want them going down the wrong, the wrong rabbit hole. So so I think guidance and say, look, this is where this is the engineer, this is the problem that we need to solve right now. And and and and you can see what's happening. So let's pay attention to what's happening at DARPA, what's happening at at NIST, what's happening at the Department of War for that matter, because we don't want to build something that nobody cares about or nobody needs. And and and we can we can sense where the industry, you know, where the industry is heading and where the needs are going to be. Because the biggest customer of all this is likely to be the federal government. so I think yeah, I think following and being close to where those needs are. And that can happen through Direct discussions, you know, you can you can you can monitor from a distance. People I we always recommend, you know, let's let's make a trip to D C every once in a while and sit down with with with people in the agencies and and hear directly from them where they foresee the needs in the future.
speaker-1: Absolutely. for somebody wanting to consider a career, and this is speaking to again people who are trying to upskill to and who are not physicists, right? what are some of the career options you think would be perfect? for s I I'm sure you face the same thing that I do sometimes is having a a cohort or a critical mass of people who think exactly like you. because you come from a unique background looking at the quantum technology, right? So what are some of the advo advice suggestions to the to the younger generation or anyone who is looking to upskill so that they have these unique USP about them to fit into this policy discussion from a legal or a law point of view.
speaker-0: Well, I think it goes back to that stakeholder discussion we had, where if if a technology is big enough, at some point you're gonna need stakeholders from every profession. And you know, what we're seeing on the AI front right now is is at least in the workforce, those who who have been looking ahead, who've been kind of upskilling by just becoming familiar with the tools that are out there, they have an advantage. They can be, they can be more valuable in their jobs, wherever those are. And on and if to your point about you know your question on the policy side, if they needed to be draw drawn in to be part of that stakeholder discussion, their their base profession, whether that's law or or science or you know or or medicine, that can be very relevant to that if they want it to be, but They've got to familiarize themselves with what's going on on the quantum on the on the on the technology side, in this case, quantum. so really any field is going to be relevant. Now, right now, you is an HR expert super relevant for quantum? it's not going to be the first the first round of stakeholders. I mean, we discussed who the who those who those are right now. but they will be relevant at some point. So, you know, if if that's something they'd like to do, be part of that. Now, if you're a student right now and you're looking ahead, then you know you probably ought to be in science or law or or finance. I mean finance, of course, I was both everything. So I I think there are a few areas where you're going to be on the forefront of your interested in quantum but don't have the the science skills. I think there those are some tracks that that'll put you there. so but you know, if you go into medicine, you might not be super relevant to quantum on the first round. But you will be pretty soon after as we're develop as we're using that technology to develop develop new, you know, drugs and pharmaceutical applications, et cetera.
speaker-1: Absolutely. And all of these are use cases, right? Each of these fields. That's how we look at quantum and AI as tools. And I think that reduces the barrier to understanding and entry as well. So if somebody were to study about quantum policy or policy in general, where should they start?
speaker-0: so the most common track is to is to go work with the policymakers. And and that means, you know, start doing internships when you're even in high school. You can go be a a page at the at the Capitol, you can be intern at the Capitol at your state level, you can go to the to go to Congress and do that. in college, you can continue to have those types of internships. political science degree. Political science degree, we'll put you there. a lot of people who are kind of, you know, expert professionals on the policy side, that's the route they take but you don't have to take that route. If you you can also do it through as we've been discussing, you can say what stakeholder do I want to be part of, and and and you can do it through that. You it just takes being part of the conversation, showing up at events, going to going to trade discussions, going to round tables like the ones that that you have hosted. I got there because I was so close to the businesses. And I think that's the advantage that I bring in most most any policy discussion is is I have a better feel than than people that have come up through the political system. I think I have a better feel for for what how things are going to impact businesses and and and you know and our economy. So yeah, you gotta lean into what lean into what you got, right?
speaker-1: Absolutely. And speaking of, we are planning on introducing set of students as part of our roundtables so that they could essentially listen in and understand the inner workings of decision making process just as part of our round tables. I I believe they can benefit immensely from that and so that's that's one improvement going forward. but also
speaker-0: I love that.
speaker-1: with with comfort is probably the biggest enemy to, you know, the growth in my opinion. And so trying to play at the interfaces of, you know, policy and law and technology and law, there are so many things that instead of just being in one one vertical, if we are at the intersection of that Venn diagram, I think they can find themselves in many of these discussions. And one saying goes, right, that if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. So it is something very important to shape the quantum policy at large. So one last question. What is the message you have for business leaders, policymakers, educators, and technologists to take away from this discussion today?
speaker-0: I think there's the general lesson of you just said it very well, that that that famous saying if if you're not if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. So if there's an area that you think you're that's gonna be relevant for your company, then you know, then you've got to just get engaged or have someone be engaged on your behalf and and not you no one can be doing everything at once, but but you can become engaged. how relevant will quantum be for your business. And and I think that you and I believe that like AI, it'll eventually become relevant to everybody. if you're a plumber, maybe it's not super relevant for for a few years. But if you're in, if you're almost anything else, you're especially if you're large organization, you need like the quantum readiness that you described that I know that you're kind of leader in real, real knowledge holder Every organization needs to be thinking about quantum readiness and talking to yeah, to someone like you to make sure that they're there because in a couple of years, their whole franchise could be at risk if they're not ready.
speaker-1: Great, great. So Troy, thank you very much for joining us today and for sharing your thoughts. Our conversation really highlighted the future of quantum technologies. is not just about scientific breakthroughs and technical innovation, but also about policies, partnerships, workforce, inf investment, and ecosystem development needed to translate capability into impact. And thanks again for joining and And everyone who has joined us for this quantum ecosystem conversation. So any final thoughts you have for our audiences, please feel free to share.
speaker-0: Just just a big thank you. I think we've covered a lot of good territory. I think this is a great introductory to the whole canvas of of you know where things are going and on on the policy side and and how to jump in. thanks, thanks for the excellent questions and the opportunity, Dolly.
speaker-1: Thank you so much for joining us, Troy.
