HSBC quantum computer's fake news

Home page
Quantum computer is useless

Error-prone useless quantum computers accidentally gave better results than errorless quantum simulators (= classical computers ) ?  ← fake quantum advantage

(Fig.1)  Today's noisy (= error-prone ) quantum computers cannot outperform noiseless (= errorless ) quantum simulators (= classical computers ).  But the media lied.

HSBC's quantum computer advantage in bond trading is fake.

The mainstream media, CBS, Bloomberg, Reuters.. spread fake news on quantum computers.

Despite the useless hopeless quantum computers, the mainstream media spread fake news saying HSBC-IBM ( error-prone ) quantum computer showed advantage in predicting bond trading (= untrue ).

Quantum computers are error-prone, useless.

But HSBC and fake news falsely say their quantum computer's errors unexpectedly led to better results than errorless quantum simulator (= classical computer ).  ← impossible

↑ This research paper ( this-last-link ) on fake quantum advantage ↓

↑ p.8-right-3.2-2nd-paragraph says  - - error-prone quantum
"Since today's (quantum computer) devices are still inherently noisy (= error-prone ) and may alter the generated feature outputs, we also use a noiseless (= errorless ) quantum simulator running on a classical computer (= superior classical computers ) to compare with"

↑ p.9 says  - - still Not a quantum computer:
This quantum computer had only 109 qubits (= one qubit takes only 0 or 1 value ), which is useless, far from useful millions of qubits ( this-4th-paragraph ).  ← They used deceptive "hybrid (= almost classical )" computer, the useless quantum computer alone cannot calculate anything.

↑ p.9-left-3.2.2. says  - - classical computer is needed:
"Since the quantum hardware is susceptible to noise (= errors ),.. In this study, we apply two error mitigation methods"  ← Classical computers were used to empirically mitigate errors of their useless quantum computers ( this-4th-paragraph )"  ← so No quantum computer's advantage.

↑ p.14-left-2nd~3rd-paragraphs say  - - errors were accidentally useful ?
"The model performance results for respectively generated fill probability... show significant uplifts of out-of-sample test scores for models with noisy (= error-prone ) quantum hardware-generated inputs over those with noiseless (= error-less ) quantum simulation or classical input"  ← false results

"the results are still subject to many open questions. For instance, it is Not understood how exactly quantum hardware noise affects our particular quantum circuit, and it is unclear how resulting noise-encoded feature vectors may benefit the analysis of noisy financial observables. This requires further investigation."  ← doubtful results

Zombie claim of fake quantum computer's advantage.

Today's noisy (= error-prone ) quantum computers can never be superior to noiseless (= errorless ) quantum simulators (= classical computers ), contrary to fake news.

↑ This research result is wrong, so this paper's author also doubts this result.

Because unlike this (doubtful) paper's result, it is impossible that the current noisy (= error-prone ) quantum computer hardware gave better results than the noiseless (= errorless ) quantum computer's simulator (= on classical computer ).

The noiseless (= errorless ) quantum simulators (= classical computers ) represent the best ideal errorless quantum computers that still do not exist, which can never be outperformed by today's useless noisy (= error-prone ) quantum compuyters theoretically.

Error-prone quantum computers are inferior to noiseless simulators.

This-p.9-right-conclusion-1st-paragraph (in 2025 ) says
"The slightly better performance of the classical simulation is expected, as the Aer simulator assumes an ideal, noiseless quantum system (= better errorless classical computer ), while real quantum hardware (= worse ) is inherently affected by noise and gate errors."

IBM's error-prone quantum computers are inferior to classical computers.

All other papers say today's error-prone (= noisy ) quantum computers always gave worse results than errorless quantum simulators (= classical computers ), contrary to this HSBC case.

This recent research paper using the same IBM quantum hardware (9/19/2025) showed inferior quantum computer's hardware ↓

↑ p.10-right-last-paragraph says
"When executing on real (quantum) hardware, in contrast to the noisefree Aer simulator (= classical computer ),.... Omitting this delay can result in timing conflicts, backend execution errors, and incorrect state transitions, all of which do not occur in simulation"

↑ p.13-left-2nd-paragraph says
" the hardware (= quantum computer ) runs exhibit a noisier (= more erroneous ) distribution"
"On hardware, noise, gate errors, and qubit decoherence further reduced the likelihood of consistently sampling the optimal trajectories"

Fake news to make error-prone hopeless quantum computers look "promising"

So this HSBC research's noisy quantum computer hardware accidentally happened to make better prediction due to unpredictable errors (= No real quantum advantage ) or the artificial illegitimate error-mitigation trick conducted by a classical computer's post-processing ( this-p.1-right-2nd-paragraph ).

As a result, No quantum computer advantage in bond trading, contrary to overhyped fake news just trying to make today's error-prone hopeless quantum computers look "promising".

Feel free to link to this site.