You have probably heard about the new state of matter that Microsoft scientists purportedly developed, in order to operate quantum computers. That type of computer will supposedly solve scientific problems and lead to better lives for all of us. Leading media outlets such as the NY Times, BBC, CNBC, Fox News, and Forbes trumpeted the purported breakthrough with headlines such as “Massive Microsoft Quantum Computer Breakthrough Uses New State Of Matter.”

How media outlets ended up focusing on “state of matter,” and not the words used in either the press release or the Nature paper, is somewhat baffling. The press release is titled “Microsoft unveils Majorana 1, the world’s first quantum processor powered by topological qubits,” while the academic paper is titled “Interferometric single-shot parity measurement in In As–Al hybrid devices.” I have a bachelor’s degree in physics and a PhD in engineering, yet the logical relationships between these titles are not clear to me.

Perhaps this is more important: Did you hear that many scientists are “sceptical”? Perhaps not; the headline wouldn’t sound as good. The same day that Microsoft published its interferometric paper, Nature published a news article, “Microsoft claims quantum-computing breakthrough— but some physicists are sceptical.” The Wall Street Journal reported, “Physicists Question Microsoft’s Quantum Claim.” The Journal quoted Jay Sau, a theoretical condensed matter physicist at the University of Maryland: “This is where you cross over from the realm of science to advertising.” But few other major news outlets even picked up on this story.

The superconductor fiasco

Do you remember the fiasco about room temperature and ambient pressure superconductors during the summer of 2023? As Gary Smith and I wrote during the midst of the hype,

Social media is afire with reports that South Korean researchers had synthesized a room-temperature and room-pressure superconductor they call K-99. Long pursued by physicists and engineers, room-temperature, room-pressure superconductivity would revolutionize electronics and engineering by allowing current to move through wires without any energy loss. Everything will be cheaper and more efficient. Trains will levitate! 

But we also wrote:

Alas, the likelihood that this is BS research is very close to 100 percent. In the 110-year history of superconductors, the highest temperature recorded by scientists at ambient pressure is a chilly negative 120 degrees Centigrade or negative 189 degrees Fahrenheit. Now, these researchers claim they have created a room temperature (about 20 degrees Centigrade, 68 degrees Fahrenheit) superconductor which is 140 degrees higher in Centigrade and 257 degrees higher in Fahrenheit than the previous record!  

Or what about the net energy gains for nuclear fusion reported in late 2022, which purportedly meant that limitless energy was close? According to The Guardian, researchers have reportedly made a breakthrough in the quest to unlock a “near-limitless, safe, clean” source of energy: they have got more energy out of a nuclear fusion reaction than they put in.” Although this report was followed six months later by another report in The Guardian,  advertising a slightly bigger net energy gain, there is still no evidence that nuclear fusion is anywhere close to being economical. Similar stories can be told for purported breakthroughs in solid state batteries, bioelectronics of the Theranos kind, and hydrogen vehicles.

I know what many readers are thinking: These science-based technologies require decades to work. Yes, but few articles mention this fact in their haste to publicize the latest “breakthroughs,” leading readers to believe that successful commercialization is imminent.

And artificial intelligence?

Artificial intelligence has, of course, been hyped even more than these energy sources over the last two years, with scientific papers appearing daily and investors responding positively. But, did you hear what Satya Nadella said last week? “The world has yet to turn any of today’s AI hype and spending into a meaningful lift in the actual economy.” He said it during a podcast interview in which he put a measuring stick on AI’s true impact: “Success will be measured through global economic growth rather than arbitrary benchmarks of how well AI programs can complete challenges like obscure math puzzles. Those are interesting in isolation but do not have practical utility.”

Wow! That’s a big about-face from the company that sells ChatGPT. And Microsoft is not alone in this. For instance, although Klarna, the buy-now-pay-later company, said last year that it would replace many of its employees with AI, including customer support representatives (i.e., call centers), its “CEO recently walked that claim back after reports on social media found that Klarna had replaced a basic phone tree system with AI, which is not revolutionary and may have resulted in customers quitting chats out of frustration.” Moreover, a recent Fortune article concluded that “call center employees in the Philippines aren’t worried about AI.”

Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky has said that “AI-powered coding assistants haven’t led to a “fundamental step change in productivity yet. And I’ve talked to a lot of other tech CEO’s. Most of them haven’t seen a material change in engineering productivity.”

HSBC’s head of generative AI, Edward Achter, recently described other companies “bragging about their use of AI, without producing real results, as success theater.”

Carl Sagan popularized the aphorism “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” 30 years ago, but it seems that today’s commentators still haven’t learned, or don’t want to learn. In fact, the recent hype about science advances suggests that the overall hype keeps getting louder.

Sabine Hossenfelder

Gary Smith and I have been slicing and dicing this hype for years, particularly about AI. Meanwhile, Sabine Hossenfelder has been doing the same for more esoteric sciences such as quantum computing and particle physics. Her YouTube videos usually get more than one million views, along with much criticism from some physicists.

Last month she used the contents of a seven-year old email from a top physicist to highlight these criticisms in a video entitled “I was asked to keep this confidential.” The sender of the email did not like Sabine’s 2017 article in Nature Physics entitled “Science needs to be trusted.” How can anyone disagree with a title like that? Well they can, because the writer was worried about the scientists who depend on government funding to pay their bills and those of their families. The writer also said that it doesn’t matter if scientists overpromise and don’t solve any problems that taxpayers care about because those taxpayers are stupid.

Sabine wants scientists to fix the system because they are the ones with the best knowledge about the problem. She says that they should fix the problem from the inside. But few scientists have responded to her challenge and many have instead chosen to kill the messenger.

I learn about this first hand each time I post one of her videos on LinkedIn. Although they generally get more than 500 likes and 60,000 impressions — not bad for a small-time contributor like me — it is the angry comments that are most interesting. Many people criticize Sabine, her motives, and her personality, which is of course why she finally publicized the email from seven years ago. For example, few if any of the critics proposed any changes to our system of university research in response to my recent post, despite my request that each of Sabine’s critics suggest changes to the system. Instead, they focused on how evil Sabine is.  

This is the state of science today. Companies, universities and almost everyone else hypes the latest advances while those who question the hype are told that they are the problem.