Why Does Quantum Computing Face an Ongoing Dispute Over "Utility"? — A Mathematical Audit to Transcend Demo-Centric AI Hype

1. Why Does Quantum AI Remain an "Unverifiable Expectation"?

• Current Landscape: While headlines frequently promise that quantum computing will "accelerate" AI to unprecedented levels, professionals in business and research have yet to witness any tangible, large-scale impact.

• The Industry's Skepticism: "When will it transition from theory to practice?" "Are these published results merely 'cherry-picked' under highly idealized conditions?"

• Our Mission: The Quantum Utility Verification Lab is initiating a "Mathematical Audit" to resolve these ambiguous expectations and establish a definitive, rigorous framework for true verification.

2. Why is "Quantum Supremacy" Often Unreliable? Three Structural Flaws

Identifying the "traps" in current Quantum AI through the lens of a formal auditor:

1. The Prevalence of "Retroactive Rules" (The Trap of Adaptive Analysis)

   • Are evaluation metrics being surreptitiously adjusted after observing the results?

2. Asymmetric Comparisons of Computational Resources

   • Does the quantum advantage hold firm when the classical counterpart is fully and fairly optimized?

3. The Reproducibility Crisis and the Wall of "Finite Closure"

   • Introducing the core "Finite Closure" theory—a fundamental barrier to generalizability—using analogies accessible to cross-disciplinary experts.

2.5 The "Quantum AI Hype" Self-Audit Checklist

A definitive "yardstick" for stakeholders to distinguish between speculative hype and mathematical reality:

• Pre-commitment: Are evaluation metrics strictly fixed before the commencement of experiments?

• Non-adaptivity: Is the evaluation data rigorously isolated from the training process (zero data leakage)?

• Independence: Is there verifiable evidence of independent trials (e.g., seeds, trial IDs)?

• Parity: Is the classical baseline optimized to its theoretical limit for a fair comparison?

• Metric Consistency: Are the definitions of Resource $R$ (time, power, cost, or iterations) consistent across both domains?

3. [Main Topic] Proving "AGI Acceleration": A Formal Definition

In this framework, "Utility" is strictly defined by three criteria: (i) Execution under a pre-committed verification protocol $\Pi$, (ii) satisfaction of a prescribed success rate, and (iii) proof that expected quantum resources $E[R_Q]$ are lower than classical resources $E[R_C]$. Any claim lacking these three pillars is categorized as a "performance," not a "proposition of utility."

• The Verification Protocol $\Pi$: For a claim to be scientifically valid, the "rules of engagement" must be immutable and fixed prior to the experiment.

• The Three Mandatory Axioms (Audit Standards):

  • Pre-commitment: The evaluation methodology must not be altered post-hoc.

  • Non-adaptivity: Evaluation data must never influence the learning process.

  • Independent Trials: Results must be statistically significant, eliminating "statistical flukes."

4. Audit Deliverables (Evidence-Based Outputs)

A Mathematical Audit is a rigorous practice, not a philosophical stance. We require the following evidence for any verification:

1. Commit($\Pi$): A verifiable commitment to pre-fixed evaluation rules (via public logs or decentralized bulletin boards).

2. $D_{\text{eval}}$ Generation Specifications: A process description ensuring total non-adaptivity (no data leakage).

3. Evidence of Independent Trials: Full disclosure of trial IDs, random seeds, and execution traces to support i.i.d. (independent and identically distributed) claims.

4. Resource Metrics Matrix: Transparent definitions and empirical measurements of $R_Q$ and $R_C$ (wall-clock time, energy consumption, cloud billing, etc.).

5. Conclusion: Toward an Era Where Only the Rigorous Remains

• Quantum computers are not "magic wands," but they represent "formidable instruments" when governed by rigorous protocols.

• The first step toward utility is not found in boundless optimism, but in the "mathematical coldness" of strict verification.

• The Quantum Utility Verification Lab transforms speculative hype into a "Professional Licensing Exam," accelerating the realization of true, practical quantum application.

▼Audit results https://ghostdrifttheory.github.io/ghostdrift-quantum-ai-verification/

What Is the Quantum Practicality Verification Lab?

The Quantum Practicality Verification Lab is an independent verification project that evaluates quantum technologies not as research achievements, but through the lens of operational requirements.

We provide a rigorous framework that pulls quantum-related claims away from hopeful speculation and grounds them in explicit, testable requirements.Our role is neither to glorify quantum technology nor to dismiss it reflexively. Instead, we assess the presented evidence and draw a clear, disciplined line between what can be responsibly discussed as practical (PASS) and what fails to meet the required conditions (FAIL).

All evaluations are based strictly on disclosed data, reproducibility, and integration constraints—never on future expectations or narratives.

For an overview of our mission, methodology, and verification philosophy, please refer to the official project page below:

Quantum Practicality Verification Lab — Official Project Page

Representative Articles

• Why Does Quantum Computing Face an Ongoing Dispute Over “Utility”? — A Mathematical Audit Beyond Demo-Centric Hype

• Does Quantum Computing Increase Success Rates in Drug Discovery? — A Mathematical Audit of the “Score Improvement = Success” Assumption

• What Can Quantum Computers Truly Do? — Determining Practicality via Probability Distribution Generation

• Will Quantum Computing Scale to Next-Generation CPUs? — Rethinking Infrastructure Through Audit Specifications