For the skeptical, there are two quantum computing job tracks which can operate independently for the next while: (1) The engineering and basic physics researc

For the skeptical, there are two quantum computing job tracks which can operate independently for the next while: (1) The engineering and basic physics research necessary to build a real, working quantum computer of high enough quality (low error rate) and size (number of qbits) for real-world use. Scott Aaronson believes we won't have a sufficiently-advanced quantum computer to, for example, run Shor's algorithm against a real-world key size for at least 15 years. (2) The development of quantum algorithms, error-correction schemes, cryptography, and as-yet-unknown use-cases; the implementation thereof in a large, well-designed software library; finally, the development of education materials to ease onboarding of the existing software engineering workforce to quantum computing. Microsoft has an actual quantum software engineering job listed, at this very moment: https://careers.microsoft.com/us/en/job/503847/Quantum-Software-Engineer https://careers.microsoft.com/us/en/job/503847/Quantum-Softw... Now, it's completely possible that (1) just won't pan out and we'll never, ever have a quantum computer advanced enough to work on real-world problems, in which case all investment into both (1) and (2) will have been a complete waste. However, given that we have good reason to believe (1) will succeed, why should we put (2) on hold for the next 15 years? Do we really want to finally have a shiny new quantum computer, then not have anything to run on it? For an overview of the current state of quantum computing and what we can do with current NISQ (noisy intermediate-scale quantum) computers, there's a good survey paper by John Preskill called Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00862 https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00862