
Reality-check quantum claims
See for yourself what today's quantum computers can actually do, and how far they are from the applications in the headlines. You do not need to be a physicist: ask in plain language, and the plugin runs the numbers on real hardware records, each one taken from a published source.
Example path ·
https://www.quantum-expectations.com/api/mcpQuantum Expectations estimates what current and near-term quantum hardware can run. Every tool is a deterministic, read-only computation over primary-sourced data and returns primitives, never a verdict: the conclusion is yours to draw and to caveat.
Start with (one circuit on a platform passed as hardwareId, or at an error rate), (what hardware a circuit needs) or (every platform at once). sizes a full surface-code or qLDPC footprint from logical qubits and T count. extrapolates record trends. , , , and are the data tables behind the compute tools.
Carry the caveats and source URLs a result returns into your answer. Where a result reports two fits (conservative and optimistic), state both. Present modelled numbers as model output, never as measurements: holds the measured yardstick, and where it disagrees with the model, the measurement wins. Figures marked attested-estimate rest on the authors' word, not a published circuit; say so when you quote them.
When a question names a platform (superconducting, trapped-ion, neutral-atom) without stating its error rate, pass that platform as hardwareId rather than a generic qubitErrorRate. holds best-case testbed timings, so a runtime built on them is an optimistic lower bound; say so. Check a qLDPC code's caveats before quoting its logical error rate as firm. Comparing a result against classical alternatives, and deciding whether a problem should run on a quantum computer, is your conclusion to draw.
1 in the ChatGPT listing