Berichten met de tag Quantum-AI

Quantum-AI vraagt om een dubbel technisch dossier

Waarom dit nu telt

Quantum-AI-systemen zijn niet langer alleen een onderzoeksmotief. Zodra een AI-dienst een quantumprocessor, quantumsimulator, quantum sensor of quantum-geïnspireerde optimalisatielaag gebruikt, verandert de documentatievraag. De koper wil niet alleen weten welke data, modelkeuzes en toezichtmaatregelen bij het AI-systeem horen. Hij wil ook weten wat het quantumdeel precies doet, onder welke meetcondities het is getest, en of de prestatieclaim reproduceerbaar is buiten de demonstratieomgeving.

Het dubbele dossier

De EU AI Act maakt die vraag scherper. Voor hoog-risico AI-systemen draait technische documentatie om risicobeheer, logging, nauwkeurigheid, robuustheid, cybersecurity en menselijk toezicht. Een quantumcomponent ontsnapt daar niet aan. Zij voegt een tweede bewijsvlak toe: hardware of simulator, ruis, kalibratie, meetherhaling, foutmarge, backend-wijzigingen en de grens tussen quantum-geïnspireerde code en echt quantumgebruik. Zonder dat tweede vlak kan een systeem juridisch netjes lijken terwijl een beslissende technische laag onleesbaar blijft.

De actuele onderzoekslijnen laten zien waarom dit geen theoretische luxe is. Quantumalgoritmen voor thermal-state preparation, quantum-versterkte federated learning en industriële quantumroadmaps brengen AI, sensoren, privacy en hardwareprestaties dichter bij elkaar. Voor Europese procurement betekent dat: vraag niet alleen of een leverancier AI Act-ready is, maar welk bewijs hij geeft voor de quantumlaag. De kern is technische documentatie voor quantum-AI: welke rol speelt het quantumdeel, welke prestatie is geclaimd, wie valideert die claim en wat gebeurt er na een hardware- of modelwijziging? Juist die laatste vraag hoort al in de aanbesteding, omdat een backendwissel of herkalibratie de betrouwbaarheid van het hele systeem kan raken.

Contractuele vertaling

Een bruikbaar dossier heeft vijf velden: rolafbakening, meet- en testbewijs, data- en privacyrouting, wijzigingsbeheer en contractuele verantwoordelijkheid. Die velden halen de magie uit de verkooptaal zonder de technologie kleiner te maken dan zij is. AIRecht vertaalt zulke claims naar due diligence, compliance en contracttaal: niet als brede strategiepresentatie, maar als leesbaar dossier voor legal, procurement, security en productmanagement. Juist bij frontiertechnologie is sober bewijswerk vaak de beste bescherming tegen overdreven claims.

Meer lezen

AI Recht, Quantum Governance, ComplianceMauritz Kop6 juli 2026Quantum-AI, EU AI Act, technische documentatie, quantum governance, procurement, compliance

BioLawLaPaLooZa: Mauritz Kop on Hippocratic Quantum and the End of Stable Records at Stanford Law School

At BioLawLaPaLooZa, the annual law-and-biosciences conference convened at Stanford Law School by Henry T. "Hank" Greely and co-hosted with the Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Mauritz Kop delivered a talk that fused two strands of his recent work: the biomedical-ethics argument of his Harvard-published Hippocratic Quantum project and the security lens of his NATO Strategic Communications advisory work. It was his third appearance at the gathering, which builds on his earlier BioLawLaPaLooZa remarks.

The past is not yet stable

Kop's organizing line was that "the past is not yet stable." Rather than treating the quantum threat as a future event, he argued that today's authenticated, confidential records are contingent on a cryptographic transition still under way: adversaries can harvest encrypted data now and decrypt it once a Shor-capable machine factors the large integers beneath RSA. Confidentiality, in this reading, must be defended retroactively as well as prospectively—making the migration to post-quantum cryptography, for hospitals and biobanks, a clinical duty rather than an IT preference. The point reframes a familiar threat model: the danger is not only what a future machine will decrypt, but what is being copied and stored today against that day.

Four classical principles, recomputed

The talk recast the four principles of biomedical ethics—autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice—for a quantum register. Quantum does not replace them, Kop said; it changes what applying them requires. Autonomy comes to demand data sovereignty and a credible right not to know as quantum-AI systems build finer probabilistic patient models. Dual-use simulators that design therapeutics can also lower the barrier to designing pathogens, which is where his LSI test—least trade-restrictive, security-sufficient, innovation-preserving—supports tiered disclosure over blanket secrecy. And the justice problem is a widening one: the quantum divide, he warned, may prove steeper than the digital divide.

The X-Ray City and a constitution for medicine

Widening the lens, Kop described civic-scale quantum gravimetric and magnetic sensors moving from the laboratory toward infrastructure pilots—able, from public rights-of-way, to resolve subsurface and interior spaces, and so to reach into the privacy of the home. He calls this prospect the X-Ray City, and said he had told NATO it needs a Hippocratic Quantum posture of its own. He closed with a "quantum constitution for medicine" in four standards of care: quantum-safe encryption, sovereignty over patient digital twins, human oversight in the loop, and tiered disclosure under the LSI test. The premise the room had not heard before, he suggested, was simply that the past itself is not yet settled.

Meer lezen

Academics, Healthcare, Stanford RQTHenry Quentir1 mei 2026Mauritz Kop, Stanford RQT, Healthcare, Ethics, Quantum Governance, Quantum Technology, Stanford Law School, Hippocratic Quantum, BioLawLapalooza, Hank Greely, Post-Quantum Cryptography, LSI Test, Quantum-AI, Petrie-Flom Center

Quantum Event Horizon: Addressing the Quantum-AI Control Problem through Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI

What happens when AI becomes not just superintelligent, but quantum-superintelligent? QAI agents with both classical and quantum capabilities? How do we ensure we remain in control?

This is the central question of my new article, where I introduce the concept of the Quantum Event Horizon to frame the urgency of the QAI control problem. As we near this point of no return, the risk of losing control to misaligned systems—machines taking over or seeing them weaponized—becomes acute.

A metaphorical Quantum Event Horizon can be thought of as an inflection point, or quantum governance 'tipping point' beyond which our ability to steward advanced quantum technology and AI towards beneficial outcomes for all of humanity, may vanish.

Simple guardrails are not enough. The solution must be architectural. I propose a new paradigm: Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI, a method for engineering our core values into the foundation of QAI itself. This is a crucial discussion for policymakers, researchers, builders, and industry leaders.

Navigating the Quantum Event Horizon

This paper addresses the impending control problem posed by the synthesis of quantum computing and artificial intelligence (QAI). It posits that the emergence of potentially superintelligent QAI agents creates a governance challenge that is fundamentally different from and more acute than those posed by classical AI. Traditional solutions focused on technical alignment are necessary but insufficient for the novel risks and capabilities of QAI. The central thesis is that navigating this challenge requires a paradigm shift from reactive oversight to proactive, upfront constitutional design.

The core of the argument is framed by the concept of the ‘Quantum Event Horizon’—a metaphorical boundary beyond which the behavior, development, and societal impact of QAI become computationally opaque and practically impossible to predict or control using conventional methods. Drawing on the Collingridge dilemma and the Copenhagen interpretation, this concept highlights the risk of a "point of no return," where technological lock-in, spurred by a "ChatGPT moment" for quantum, could cement irreversible geopolitical realities, empower techno-authoritarianism, and present an unmanageable control problem (the risk of machines taking over). Confronting this requires a new philosophy for governing non-human intelligence.

Machines Taking Over

The urgency is magnified by a stark geopolitical context, defined by a Tripartite Dilemma between the existential safety concerns articulated by figures like Geoffrey Hinton, the geopolitical security imperative for rapid innovation voiced by Eric Schmidt, and the builder’s need to balance progress with safety, as expressed by Demis Hassabis. This dilemma is enacted through competing global innovation models: the permissionless, market-driven US system; the state-led, top-down Chinese system; and the values-first, deliberative EU model. In this winner-takes-all race, the first actor to achieve a decisive QAI breakthrough could permanently shape global norms and our way of life.

An Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI

Given these stakes, current control paradigms like human-in-the-loop oversight are inadequate. The speed and complexity of QAI render direct human control impossible, a practical manifestation of crossing the Quantum Event Horizon. Therefore, governance must be multi-layered, integrating societal and institutional frameworks. This includes establishing an "Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI" for international oversight and promoting Responsible Quantum Technology (RQT) by Design, guided by principles such as those outlined in our '10 Principles for Responsible Quantum Innovation' article. These frameworks must be led by robust public governance—as corporate self-regulation is insufficient due to misaligned incentives—and must address the distributive justice imperative to prevent a "Quantum Divide."

Towards Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI

The cornerstone of our proposed solution is Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI. This approach argues that if we cannot control a QAI agent tactically, we must constrain it architecturally. It builds upon the concept of Constitutional AI by designing a core set of ethical and safety principles (a 'constitution') that are not merely trained into the model but are formally verified and made robust against both classical and quantum-algorithmic exploitation. By hardwiring this quantum-secure constitution into the agent's core, we can create a form of verifiable, built-in control that is more likely to endure as the agent's intelligence scales.

Self-Aware Quantum-AI Agents

Looking toward more speculative futures, the potential for a Human-AI Merger or the emergence of a QAI Hive Mind—a networked, non-human consciousness enabled by quantum entanglement—represents the ultimate challenge and the final crossing of the Quantum Event Horizon. The foundational governance work we do today, including projects like Quantum-ELSPI, is the essential precursor to navigating these profound transformations.

In conclusion, this paper argues that for the European Union, proactively developing and implementing a framework centered on Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI is not just a defensive measure against existential risk. It is a strategic necessity to ensure that the most powerful technology in human history develops in alignment with democratic principles, securing the EU’s role as a global regulatory leader in the 21st century.

Meer lezen

A Principled Approach to Quantum Technology: The Stanford RQT Framework and Its Ten Principles

Quantum hardware is advancing faster than the rules meant to govern it. In A Principled Approach to Quantum Technologies (posted as a preprint on SSRN), Mauritz Kop—Founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology—surveys the 2024–2025 wave of breakthroughs from Google, IBM, D-Wave, Quantinuum, and Microsoft, and argues that the governance gap should be closed now, through the Stanford RQT framework and its Ten Principles for Responsible Quantum Innovation, rather than by waiting for comprehensive regulation.

Capability is outpacing governance

The paper reads the hardware moment carefully: Google's 105-qubit Willow crossing the below-threshold error-correction milestone; IBM's modular roadmap; D-Wave's 4,400-plus-qubit Advantage2 and its 2025 supremacy claim on a materials-simulation problem; Quantinuum and Microsoft's progress on logical qubits; and Microsoft's Majorana 1 topological chip, presented as a scientific advance still facing real scaling challenges. The trajectory—rising capability across computing, simulation, sensing, networking, and quantum/AI hybrids—is what makes governance urgent, because the field still lacks unified interoperability standards, certification, benchmarking, and quantum-ready quality-management systems.

Quantum-ELSPI and dual use

The governance frame is Quantum-ELSPI: the ethical, legal, socio-economic, and policy implications of quantum technology. Because second-generation quantum systems directly harness superposition, entanglement, and tunneling, their dual-use character is acute—quantum simulation can yield vaccines or weapons, sensors can serve the environment or surveillance—and a sufficiently capable machine could break today's encryption, making preparation for "Q-day" through post-quantum cryptography and NIST standards a present-tense task. The paper draws an explicit lesson from nuclear technology—society justifies medical and energy uses while doing little about the destructive extreme—an asymmetry quantum governance should not repeat. The deeper lessons come from a community Kop helped build, surveyed in the second annual Stanford Responsible Quantum Technology Conference.

The RQT framework and SEA

The constructive answer is Responsible Quantum Technology, operationalized through Ten Principles organized under safeguarding, engaging, and advancing (SEA) quantum technologies, society, and humankind—the aim being to safeguard society through advancing quantum technology, a responsible but pro-innovation stance. The framework also folds in the four dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation—anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, and responsiveness—and treats regulation as a balancing act, invoking the Collingridge dilemma to argue for anticipatory governance before the technology becomes locked in. Absent formal regulation beyond security and export controls, stakeholders are urged to adopt self-regulatory quantum-technology-assessment tools to monitor, validate, and audit applications across their life cycle—an approach the paper frames as both a public good and a first-mover advantage. Kop developed this institutional home as the center's founder, whose launch at Stanford set the agenda the paper now systematizes. Its governing maxim—quantum R&D kept "as open as possible, and as closed as necessary"—frames a deliberate path through the current regulatory vacuum.

Meer lezen

Mauritz Kop Expert at Eric Schmidt backed von Neumann Commission

Stanford, CA – Mauritz Kop, the Frm. Founding Executive Director of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology (RQT), has accepted an invitation to serve as an expert on The von Neumann Commission. The announcement, made on February 1, 2025, positions Kop to contribute to a critical global dialogue at the intersection of quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and grand strategy. The Oxford-based, independent research commission is backed by the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fund for Strategic Innovation and other key institutions. The von Neumann Commission’s inquiry will be multifaceted, addressing the core technical prospects for quantum acceleration, its strategic implications for the global balance of power, the risks to strategic stability, and the necessary governance frameworks to ensure responsible development. The Commission's investigation is set against the backdrop of a new technological paradigm—the convergence of quantum and AI—and is informed by the historical legacy of its namesake, the strategic vision of its sponsors, and the vital perspectives of its experts.

The Quantum-AI Convergence: A New Technological Paradigm

At the heart of The von Neumann Commission's inquiry is the powerful synergy between quantum computing and artificial intelligence. This convergence is not merely additive; it is a cross-pollination that promises to redefine the boundaries of both fields. To understand this, one must first grasp the fundamental difference between classical and quantum computation.

Classical computers, from supercomputers to smartphones, process information using bits, which can exist in one of two definite states: 0 or 1. Quantum computing, by contrast, operates on the principles of quantum mechanics. It uses qubits, which can exist in a state of superposition—representing both 0 and 1 simultaneously. This property, combined with entanglement, where the state of one qubit is instantly correlated with another regardless of distance, allows quantum computers to explore a vast computational space and perform parallel calculations on an exponential scale.

Professor Kop’s Expertise as a von Neumann Commissioner

As a Commission expert, Professor Kop will contribute a multidisciplinary perspective grounded in his extensive research on the law, ethics, societal impact, and policy of quantum and AI. Professor Kop has advised numerous governments and international organizations on their quantum technology strategies, including the United States (notably the Department of State on its quantum foreign policy, U.S. Senators on quantum governance, and as a Guest Professor at the US Air Force Academy), Canada, the United Kingdom, and The Netherlands, as well as multilateral institutions such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), UNESCO, CERN, and the OECD. He has also provided expert guidance to the European Union on landmark AI legislation, including the EU AI Act and the Data Act. His specific contributions to The von Neumann Commission will draw from his expertise in:

● Geostrategy, Democracy, and Authoritarianism: Analyzing the strategic struggle between democratic and authoritarian models of technology governance. This includes his work in Foreign Policy and the Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Forum on forming a strategic tech alliance among democratic nations and his lectures at institutions like the Hoover Institution on the impact of quantum technologies on the global balance of power.

● Comparative Regulatory and Innovation Models: Analyzing the legal and policy differences between the US, EU, and China. His scholarship, including his "Ten principles for responsible quantum technology" in IOP Quantum Science and Technology, his “Establishing a Legal-Ethical Framework for Quantum Technology” at Yale University, and foundational articles at Harvard Berkman Klein and Nature, dissects these competing models and provides a crucial framework for navigating global strategic competition.

● China’s Quantum and AI Strategy: Providing in-depth analysis of China's legal, ethical, and policy landscape for quantum technologies. This includes evaluating the country's national strategy, its approach to dual use civil-military fusion, its influence on U.S. and E.U. national and economic security through China’s Digital Silk Road Initiative, and its comparative strengths and weaknesses in the global technology race, as analyzed in his “Towards an Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI” scholarship at the European Commission’s Futurium.

● National and Economic Security: Examining the role of export controls, rare earth and critical mineral supply chain vulnerability as published at the Stanford Program on Geopolitics, Technology, and Governance at CISAC / FSI, intellectual property law as published at Berkeley and the Max Planck Institute, and cybersecurity in managing the geostrategic dimensions of quantum technology. His work in these areas, including his contributions to forums like Tel Aviv University's Cyber Week, provides critical insights into protecting strategic assets.

● Standards and Governance: Contributing to the development of robust standards, certification protocols, and performance benchmarks to ensure the safety, reliability, and ethical implementation of these powerful technologies, drawing from lessons from nuclear governance, and from his conferences and seminars at Stanford, Fordham Law, Arizona State, Copenhagen, the Center for Quantum Networks (CQN) and the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo.

By integrating these insights, Kop will aid the Commission in formulating a holistic understanding of the challenges pertaining to systemic rivalry and great power competition ahead.

Meer lezen

Think Tank, Stanford RQT, GovernanceMauritz Kop1 februari 2025von Neumann Commission, Eric Schmidt, Quantum-AI, Great Power Rivalry, Geostrategic Competition, Game Theory, Law, Ethics, Policy, Philosophy, Stanford RQT, Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Mauritz Kop

A Brief Quantum Medicine Policy Guide: What Regulators Should Consider for Quantum and AI in Precision Medicine

As quantum technology and artificial intelligence move toward precision medicine, regulators face a problem they have not yet built tools for. A Brief Quantum Medicine Policy Guide—published on the Harvard Petrie-Flom Center's Bill of Health blog by Mauritz Kop, Suzan Slijpen, Katie Liu, Jin-Hee Lee, Constanze Albrecht, and I. Glenn Cohen, and cross-posted with the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology and the European Commission's European AI Alliance—is a concise map of the use cases, the overlapping legal regimes, and what agencies such as the FDA and EMA should consider. It is a companion to the team's longer treatment of how quantum technologies may be integrated into healthcare, and continues the collaboration later reflected in Kop's work consulting Amgen on quantum biomedical discovery.

Quantum use cases in healthcare

The guide sorts second-generation quantum medicine by domain. Quantum computing and simulation could accelerate de novo drug discovery by modeling molecular interactions, speed genome sequencing, and assist protein-folding prediction; quantum sensing could deliver continuous high-precision vital-sign monitoring, precision laser therapy, and earlier retinal diagnostics; post-quantum cryptography and quantum key distribution could secure patient data in line with HIPAA and GDPR. A recurring thread is the semiconducting quantum dot, whose ability to cross the blood-brain barrier opens possibilities in oncology imaging, targeted drug delivery, and neurodegenerative-disease research. Throughout, the authors keep the claims proportionate, marking many applications as early-stage or theoretical.

A fragmented regulatory map

There is no quantum-specific medical-device law in either the EU or the US. European devices fall mainly under the Medical Devices Regulation, with the EU AI Act and data laws in supporting roles, while CE marking is slowed by a shortage of Notified Bodies versed in AI or quantum. US devices may sit within the existing FDA framework—potentially including the Software-as-a-Medical-Device pathway—alongside HIPAA, the FTC, and standards such as ISO 13485. The guide's first practical counsel is for manufacturers to engage agencies early.

What regulators should build next

The guide names four changes: evaluation protocols attuned to quantum behaviors; risk-management frameworks that protect human subjects from quantum unpredictability; clinical-trial guidelines tailored to quantum devices; and interoperability standards. It then proposes a three-part architecture—ex-ante regulatory sandboxes for quantum-AI devices, ex-durante expert subcommittees, and an ex-post registration database—framed by ten guiding principles, from promoting quantum literacy to fostering institutional plasticity in bodies like the FDA and EMA. The throughline is a standards-first, anticipatory posture: prepare the institutions before the technology arrives, and balance innovation against patient safety rather than choosing between them.

Meer lezen

The Innovator Features Mauritz Kop in Interview on Responsible Quantum Governance

In its weekly long-form feature, the Paris-based digital media outlet The Innovator sat down with Mauritz Kop—Founder and Executive Director of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology and a Stanford Law School TTLF Fellow—to ask a deceptively simple question: how close is quantum technology, and who will it actually serve? The interview, conducted by founding editor Jennifer L. Schenker after Kop's appearance at the XPANSE conference in Abu Dhabi, is notable for refusing the two easy answers. It neither dismisses quantum as decades-distant nor inflates it into magic. Instead it offers a branch-by-branch reading—in Kop's own terms—of a technology arriving faster than the rules meant to govern it.

A family of technologies, not a single arrival

Kop's central move is to treat quantum as a family—computing, sensing, networking, cryptography—rather than a monolith. Useful, scalable quantum computing, on his estimate, is the nearest of the branches; secure quantum networking sits roughly a decade out; and quantum-AI hybrids are already under active development. Each branch keeps its own governance clock, and conflating them is precisely how policy goes wrong. The interview's discipline in separating the timelines is what makes it useful to the corporate readers The Innovator serves.

The divide, and the duty to close it

The conversation does not stop at capability. Kop is candid that quantum hardware is "difficult and expensive to develop," raising the prospect of a quantum divide that deepens existing inequalities rather than easing them. Set against that risk is a large, genuinely planetary upside: combined with AI and advances in energy, quantum tools could help address climate-scale problems in materials and chemistry. The gap between those two futures, in Kop's telling, is governance—which is why he calls for "planetary thinking" tied to values-laden standards, the same anticipatory posture that animates his broader scholarship on the ethical, legal, social, and policy implications of quantum technology.

Advice for the early movers

For business leaders, the interview delivers a clear thesis: invest early, but build governance capability in step with technical capability. Quantum literacy, Kop argues, is a first-mover advantage, and the discipline responsible adoption requires today is the same discipline compliance is likely to require as regulatory expectations develop. That conviction runs through the body of work documented on Kop's scholar profile, where standards developed early give organizations something concrete to build toward before binding law settles. Featured in the aftermath of a deep-tech summit, the interview captures a field at its inflection point—and a scholar insisting that the responsible path and the strategic path are, increasingly, the same road.

Meer lezen

Quantum Technology, Governance, InnovationMauritz Kop22 november 2024Mauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Stanford RQT, Governance, Policy, Conference, The Innovator, Quantum Technology, XPANSE, Responsible Quantum, Standards, Quantum-AI

Mauritz Kop Fellow at Inter-CeBIL Harvard Cambridge Copenhagen

Harvard-Cambridge-Copenhagen, Sept 15, 2023 — Mauritz Kop has accepted a position as an Inter-CeBIL Fellow at the prestigious Novo Nordisk Foundation Copenhagen-Cambridge-Harvard Inter-CeBIL Programme for International Collaborative Bioscience Innovation & Law. In this role, Kop will focus his research on Advanced Medical Computing, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Quantum Technologies within the life sciences ecosystem.

About the Inter-CeBIL Programme

The Inter-CeBIL Programme is a world-leading research hub dedicated to identifying and tackling the most significant legal and regulatory barriers to health and life science innovation. The initiative fosters robust knowledge networks to provide tailored legal and regulatory support to patients, researchers, businesses, and incubators, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that health and life science innovations can safely and effectively reach patients and markets.

This international collaboration brings together top-tier academic institutions to drive progress in healthcare and biotechnology. The program is a joint effort between the Centre for Advanced Studies in Bioscience Innovation Law (CeBIL) at the University of Copenhagen, the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School, and the University of Cambridge, among other key partners. The program is led by a distinguished team, including Professor Timo Minssen as the Founding Director of CeBIL at the University of Copenhagen, Professor I. Glenn Cohen who leads Harvard Law School’s contribution, and Professor Mateo Aboy who leads the Cambridge part.

Key Research Areas

The Inter-CeBIL Programme centers its research on three key "grand challenges":

1. Advanced Medical Computing: Focusing on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Quantum Technologies (QT).

2. Pandemic Preparedness & Anti-Microbial Resistance (AMR).

3. Sustainable Innovation & Biosolutions: Encompassing eco-systems, drug R&D, drug regulation, and data infrastructures.

Focus on Key Area 1: Advanced Medical Computing, AI & Quantum Technology

This key research area addresses the increasingly critical role of advanced computing in the life sciences and medical sectors. Algorithms are becoming fundamental building blocks in a wide range of medical devices, digital health technologies (DHTs), and drug discovery tools (DDTs). The use of advanced computing, including AI/ML and quantum computing (QC), holds immense potential benefits for the life sciences, drug discovery, and medical sectors. These advancements also raise significant legal, ethical, governance, and regulatory issues that the program aims to address.

In his capacity as an Inter-CeBIL Fellow, Mauritz Kop will contribute his deep expertise in quantum-AI, its governance, and its legal-ethical implications to this key research area, helping to navigate the complex challenges and opportunities presented by these cutting-edge technologies.

Meer lezen

Mauritz Kop Interviewed by Al Jazeera on Responsible Quantum AI Computing at Stanford University

Al Jazeera English featured an interview with Mauritz Kop on responsible quantum computing and quantum artificial intelligence (QAI) at Stanford University, woven into a report from a Silicon Valley summit looking for computing's next breakthrough. Speaking in the spring of 2023, as a Transatlantic Technology Law Forum Fellow at Stanford Law School working on responsible quantum technology, Kop set out three themes that have anchored his work ever since: the societal benefits and risks of quantum computing, the need for guardrails for QAI, and his legal-futurist scenario of a Quantum Event Horizon.

Quantum technology arrives in public view

The interview's setting—an industry expo rather than a lecture hall—signaled how far quantum technology had already traveled from theory toward commerce. Kop's role in the segment was to translate that momentum into a governance question: what legal and policy architecture should accompany machines that exploit superposition and entanglement to do what classical computers cannot? The benefits, from quantum simulation in drug and materials discovery to advances in sensing, are real; so is the risk that fault-tolerant quantum computing could eventually undermine the public-key cryptography securing global infrastructure absent migration to post-quantum schemes. In quantum technology, the same capability that delivers the promise also carries the threat—which is why Kop argues the two cannot be governed as separate concerns.

Building the guardrails early

Kop's case for guardrails turns on timing. Quantum computing and artificial intelligence are each transformative; their convergence could compress the timelines on which human oversight depends. The remedy he advocates is to install safeguards at the design stage—through technical standards, impact assessment as a design instrument, and international coordination—rather than retrofitting them after deployment, when the cost of correction climbs. The Quantum Event Horizon names what those guardrails are meant to prevent: a threshold past which a quantum-AI system can no longer be brought back under meaningful human control. The concept is a design imperative, not a forecast—if such a point is even conceivable, the controls must precede it.

From research program to public conversation

What makes the Al Jazeera interview notable in hindsight is its moment. In the spring of 2023 the case for responsible quantum technology still had to be made to a general audience; the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology that Kop would found and direct was only then taking shape, with its inaugural conference held that year. Coverage on an international network helped carry the argument beyond the academy toward the citizens, regulators, and technologists whose decisions will determine whether quantum's next revolution is also a responsible one. The same conviction animates Kop's later policy writing, including his consultations with U.S. lawmakers on AI and quantum technology policy, and his profile of scholarship at the intersection of law, quantum technology, and AI.

Meer lezen

Quantum-AI, Quantum Technology, GovernanceMauritz Kop17 mei 2023Mauritz Kop, Stanford RQT, Quantum Governance, AI, Policy, Governance, Al Jazeera, Quantum-AI, QAI, Quantum Event Horizon, Responsible Quantum Technology, Media Coverage

Blog over Kunstmatige Intelligentie, Quantum, Deep Learning, Blockchain en Big Data Law

Waarom dit nu telt

Het dubbele dossier

Contractuele vertaling

The past is not yet stable

Four classical principles, recomputed

The X-Ray City and a constitution for medicine

Navigating the Quantum Event Horizon

Machines Taking Over

An Atomic Agency for Quantum-AI

Towards Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI

Self-Aware Quantum-AI Agents

Capability is outpacing governance

Quantum-ELSPI and dual use

The RQT framework and SEA

The Quantum-AI Convergence: A New Technological Paradigm

Professor Kop’s Expertise as a von Neumann Commissioner

Quantum use cases in healthcare

A fragmented regulatory map

What regulators should build next

A family of technologies, not a single arrival

The divide, and the duty to close it

Advice for the early movers

About the Inter-CeBIL Programme

Key Research Areas

Focus on Key Area 1: Advanced Medical Computing, AI & Quantum Technology

Quantum technology arrives in public view

Building the guardrails early

From research program to public conversation

Juridische diensten en projecten in Nederland en daarbuiten