IBM, Cleveland quantum computer is useless, unable to predict protein structure.

Home page
Quantum computer is useless forever
IBM fake quantum computer

A classical computer used as a noiseless quantum simulator outperformed today's error-prone quantum computer in machine-learning for protein affinity prediction.

(Fig.1)  IBM-Cleveland clinic's just 4 ~ 10 qubits is useless, still Not a quantum computer (= one qubit can take only 0 or 1 value ).

Quantum computers are inferior to classical computers

Fake news wrongly claims quantum machine-learning (= just classical computer's simulation ) was better than classical computers.

The 3rd paragraph of this news (2025) says  -- Fake quantum advantage
"the team was able to demonstrate the capabilities of quantum machine learning (= which does Not mean a quantum computer ) by creating a model that was able to predict proton affinity more accurately than classical computing."  ← Fake news.

A noiseless (= errorless ) classical computer simulator outperformed IBM error-prone quantum computer.

This research used a deceptive hybrid quantum computer (= just a classical computer ) where only 4~10 error-prone useless qubits were still Not a quantum computer.

↑ This research paper ↓

p.1-abstract-last says  -- Hybrid = classical
"As a result, the hybrid model (= "hybrid" means "classical computer") outperformed its classical counterpart and achieved consistent performance comparable to (= did Not outperform ) traditional ML models.. set on both a noiseless simulator (= classical computer ) and real ( error-prone = noisy ) quantum hardware"

p.3-right-2nd-last-paragraph says -- Noiseless classical computer
"evaluations of the trained models were conducted on test data set using both noiseless simulators (= classical computer ) and the IBM-Cleveland quantum hardware (= useless quantum computer )"

p.4-Figure 1 and p.5-Table 3  -- Useless quantum computer
show their IBM-Cleveland quantum hardware consists of only 4 ~ 10 qubits (= one qubit can take only 0 or 1 value ), which is useless, still Not a quantum computer that will need millions of qubits.

p.5-Table 3-last says  -- Noiseless classical computer
"All models were run on a noiseless simulator (= noiseless or errorless simulator is just a classical computer disguised as a quantum computer,  this-p.5-right-last-paragraph )"

Quantum computers gave worse results than classical computers.

No advantage of quantum computers that gave more errors than a noiseless classical computer simulator (= disguised as "hybrid quantum" simulator ).

↑ This-p.5-Table 4 shows  -- Classical beats error-prone quantum
IBM-Cleveland quantum computer hardware (= just 4 ~ 10 qubits, still Not a computer ) gave worse results with more errors (= MAE or mean absolute error = 3.63 in parenthesis in Hybrid QNN,  MAE = 0 means best, errorless ) than the noiseless classical simulator (= MAE = 3.29 = less error than a quantum computer ).

↑ p.4-left, p.5-Table 4-Hybrid QNN --  Worse quantum hardware
Also in the coefficients of determination (= R² = 1 is best, 0 is worst ), the quantum computer hardware gave results worse (= R² = 0.89 in parentheses ) than a noiseless classical computer's simulator (= R² = 0.94 ).

This-p.6-right-2nd-paragraph says  -- Noisy error-prone quantum computer
"Current quantum computers are susceptible to noise from various sources, leading to unavoidable errors in quantum computations (= quantum computers alone are completely useless )... The hybrid model (= classical computer disguised a noiseless quantum simulator ) implemented on hardware yields a MAE of 3.63 kcal/mol, matching (= Not outperforming ) the performance of its classical NN counterpart (= actually, quantum computer worse than the classical computer's noiseless simulator )"

As a result, the overhyped media's quantum computing outperforming classical computers is fake, which just means a noiseless classical computer simulator (= disguised as a hybrid quantum computer ) outperforming today's error-prone quantum computers and some slow classical method (= Not outperforming classical computers ).

IBM used only 9 useless qubits (= one qubit takes only 0 or 1, so still Not a quantum computer ) and a classical computer as a deceptive hybrid computer.

(Fig.2)  Hype !  Today's quantum computers are useless, cannot predict proteins.

IBM used deceptive hybrid computer, which is just a classical computer.  Quantum computer is useless.

The 1st, 7th paragraphs of this (2024) say  -- Hybrid = classical

"Researchers from Cleveland Clinic and IBM... that could (= just speculation ) lay the groundwork for applying quantum computing methods to protein structure prediction."

"The research team applied a mix of quantum and classical computing methods."  ← This (deceptive) hybrid computer is just a classical computer.

IBM quantum computer with only 9 qubits (= 9 bitstring ) cannot calculate anything.

↑ This research paper ↓

This p.14-left-3rd-paragraph says  -- No protein
"We tested steps 1−3 of this workflow on a small, but highly relevant seven amino acid fragment"  ← Just 7 amino acids, Not a protein

"the quantum algorithm executed on IBM_Cleveland and solved by VQE (= hybrid method, which is just a classical computer )"

p.15-Figure 11(a) shows  -- Useless quantum computer
this IBM quantum computer used only 9 qubits for dealing with 7 amino acids, which cannot achieve quantum advantage needing millions of qubits.

Classical computers outperform quantum computers.

IBM quantum computer cannot use more than 9 qubits due to errors, which is easily outperformed by a classical computer (= quantum simulator ).

This same paper's p.16-right-2nd-paragraph mentions "using quantum algorithm from (ref) 149."  ← this reference paper ↓

p.1-abstract-lower says  -- Useless quantum computer
"In addition,.. to simulate the folding of the 10 amino acid Angiotensin on 22 qubits (= classical computer's simulation ). The same method is also successfully applied to the study of the folding of a 7 amino acid neuropeptide using 9 qubits (= one qubit takes only 0 or 1 value = still Not a computer ) on an IBM 20-qubit quantum computer"

p.3-right-middle says  -- Useless quantum hardware
"The 22-qubit Angiotensin system is still too large for encoding in state-of-the-art quantum hardware. To this end, we investigated the folding of a smaller 7 amino acid neuropeptide"

↑ So a classical computer called quantum simulator could calculate 22 qubits which cannot be executed by a quantum computer hardware.  ← a classical computer (= quantum simulator ) outperforms IBM quantum computer despite media-hype.

Classical computers are superior and necessary to correct error-prone quantum computers.

(Fig.3)  Classical computers outperform useless quantum computers.

Quantum computer is useless. Classical computer is needed to calculate proteins.

Insider Brief and lower-Limitation of this (2025) say  -- Need Classical computer

"Researchers used a 36-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer and a specialized algorithm to solve protein folding problems involving up to 12 amino acids"  ← false, because just 36 bitstring (= one qubit can take only 0 or 1 value = still Not a computer ) is unable to solve protein folding problem without the help of classical computers

"The system applied a non-variational quantum optimization method, BF-DCQO, to find optimal or near-optimal folding configurations for three peptides,"

"The folding models used were lattice-based and didn't account for full molecular dynamics or chemical environments (= so fictional simplified protein energy model was used ). Additionally, the post-processing step — which involves a classical algorithm to refine near-optimal quantum results"  ← Errorless classical computers were necessary to reach the exact optimal answers in this error-prone useless quantum computers.

Classical computers outperform quantum computers.

A quantum computer is too error-prone to give right answers that can be easily obtained by a classical computer.  ← No quantum advantage

↑ This research paper about the above hyped quantum computer's protein ↓

p.5-Table I says  -- Exact classical computer
"table compares the best solutions obtained from the QPU (= just 22 ~ 36 ion qubits = still Not a computer ) execution after 10 iterations (= repeated this until the error-prone quantum computer luckily obtained the right optimal solutions ), with and without post-processing (= conducted by classical computer to correct quantum computer's errors ), with the optimal values determined classically (= the optimal exact solutions were easily obtained by a classical computer )"

p.6-left-last says  -- Exact classical computer
"We use Gurobi to obtain a classical reference solution "

p.6-right says  -- Repeat until success
"each iteration of BF-DCQO was run with 2000 shots across all instances. "

p.8-Fig.3 says   -- Wrong quantum vs. exact classical
" For those instances where optimal solutions were not reached (= due to quantum computer's errors ) after 10 BF-DCQO iterations, post-processing (= classical computer ) is applied on top of hardware results (gold)... Exact solution (black) is obtained using Gurobi (= exact classical computer )"

↑ So this research used only less than 36 qubits which often failed to get the exact (= optimal ) values that can be easily obtained by a classical computer.

↑ Quantum computer is useless, No advantage.

Feel free to link to this site.