May 29, 2026 4 min read

How many AI use cases will Quantum steal?

The Quantum race is heating up - thanks to government investment

S3T PodCast May 29 2026

0:00

/1272.1371428571429

IBM made headlines this week on news it will invest $10B in Quantum to deliver large-scale fault-tolerant quantum compute by 2029.

But IBM is not the only player in Quantum: a number of other companies are, and - unlike IBM- focused solely on Quantum computing. Some names to know:

Rigetti
Infleqtion (defense use cases)
IonQ has a roadmap for delivering the world's most powerful quantum computer by 2030.

Will Quantum obsolete at least some of the agentic approaches being built today?

One Quantum company D-Wave deployed a small scale Quantum compute powered auto-scheduler for Pattison Food Group's food delivery services. The solution maps out each worker's availability and preferences, then assigns drivers their weekly routes while meeting the required performance criteria.

Key point to notice: Quantum compute is being used to solve a fairly tricky optimization problem - bit of complex math there - but in a deterministic way.

Quick explainer: we can solve problems with probabilistic or deterministic answers:

Deterministic = absolutely provably correct, like 2+2 does actually and always equal 4.
Probabilistic = has a percent chance of being correct, is likely accurate but not guaranteed. When you snap a photo of a plant with the iNaturalist app, it comes back with a list of possible identifications. Note the green percent confidence numbers below each ID Suggestion:

So I think this is something to watch and test: will quantum computing represent a hard math-based deterministic approach for complex problems that previously haven't been economically viable for us to solve with the computers we had? Problems that we tended to approach via AI solutions that no matter how advanced, were still ultimately probabilistic, not deterministic?

And by extension, will quantum compute, when it arrives perhaps in 2029 or 30, obsolete at least some of the agentic approaches that are being designed and built today?

I don't know right now, but I think its something to watch carefully.

an aerial view of the capital building in washington d c — Photo by Harrison Mitchell / Unsplash

Why are quantum companies suddenly in the headlines?

The US Government has identified quantum computing as another national security priority - like AI. On May 21, the government announced it will take a minority stake in 9 Quantum Compute companies in exchange for grants.

This effectively means Quantum computing is now a federally backed strategic technology. (And yes, Wall Street has taken note, there are Quantum ETFs now).

This also marks the 2nd time the federal government has in recent times invested in companies. Recall that last year the government took a stake in Intel.

Now you may be wondering, is this appropriate? is there some red line we should not cross? Are we becoming like China - with state controlled industries?

Industrial policy vs state capital models

There are similarities in the support that China's government has provided to BYD, Huawei etc and the support that the US government provided for the interstate highway system, the Internet, GPS etc.

But there are some key differences that boil down to investment vs full control.

There are cautionary tales of what can go wrong when a powerful centralized entity exercises undue influence over investments:

In the 1980's Japan's industrial planners (keiretsu) completely underestimated software and PCs, which caused them to miss out on the global software industry (Fascinating long read here).
Europe supported telecom champions that later struggled.
Some would argue too that China even has had some misguided investment and state-sponsored activities, probably real estate being the most notable one.

I don't think that it's necessarily bad to have an industrial policy that is focused on developing or strengthening strategically critical infrastructure. We just need some healthy boundaries.

To me the healthy boundary list should go something like this:

Clear statutory authority from Congress, not ad hoc executive bargaining.
Minority, non-controlling stakes only, unless Congress were to explicitly authorize some kind of a crisis rescue. No board seats, no management control, no CEO pressure.
Transparent terms, including valuation, warrants, voting rights, exit plan, and public-interest obligations.
Investments should be based on strategic aims, not political favoritism: try to fund multiple competing firms, not one national champion.
Sunset/exit paths, so the government is not a permanent industrial owner.

Guardrails like this can help us avoid drifting into scenarios where:

the government is choosing the winners rather than making investments and letting the winners distinguish themselves.
companies become more politically focused vs customer focused
lobbying matters more than true innovation

The increase in government investment in corporations raises important questions: Will this turn out to be the U.S. building a temporary strategic response to a perceived competitive threat? Or are we quietly normalizing a new permanent marriage between government and large corporations, which might not be so healthy?

I think this will be very important to watch, develop our thinking and communicate our perspectives with our elected representatives and the agencies they oversee.

That's going to do it for this week! Hope you have a great weekend and a great week ahead!

Be sure to check out and take advantage of the S3T Playbooks:

Opinions expressed are those of the individuals and do not reflect the official positions of companies or organizations those individuals may be affiliated with. Not financial, investment or legal advice, and no offers for securities or investment opportunities are intended. Mentions should not be construed as endorsements. Authors or guests may hold assets discussed or may have interests in companies mentioned.