Inside Quantum for Good at the AI for Good Global Summit: A Global Conversation on Purpose, Pace, and Possibility

Insider Brief:

• The Quantum for Good track at AI for Good created a unique space for reflection, emphasizing governance, access, and ethical development over hype or hardware milestones.

• Sessions like the physical timeline panel brought clarity to the field’s fragmented trajectories, revealing that quantum progress unfolds on multiple, intersecting timelines shaped by different technical and societal demands.

• Day two panels reframed quantum investment as a cultural commitment to foundational science, urging early, inclusive policymaking, responsible innovation, and a stronger focus on global equity, diplomacy, and education.

• The summit closed with key announcements, including a 2026 return, a QKD pilot in Geneva, and the Quantum World Tour, highlighting Quantum for Good as an ongoing platform to contribute to the field with intention and integrity.

The inaugural Quantum for Good sessions at the AI for Good summit was a separate track, but in no way did it feel like an add-on. It was more akin to a proof of concept, not just for quantum technologies, but for what happens when you build a space that invites people to slow down and think out loud. The Quantum for Good track was conceived and brought to life by Gillian Makamara, Project Officer at the International Telecommunication Union, whose vision and coordination made space for this new kind of dialogue.

While the main stage of AI for Good buzzed with demos, diplomatic flair, and visions of near-term future, the quantum spaces radiated reflective, collaborative, at times even philosophical, energies. Zina Cinker Jarrahi, who served as the master of ceremonies for both quantum-dedicated days, brought coherence and storytelling to the event, weaving sessions together with clarity, energy, and purpose.

Quantum events are often “state of the field” updates, but this was about getting the tempo right, as quantum doesn’t yet move at the pace of the rest of emerging tech. Its developments come in intervals, with shifting timelines accompanying every new publication or hardware milestone. But its most necessary questions, specifically the ones about governance, access, safety, purpose, are timely now. And there’s something compelling about watching a field try to meet those questions with maturity, even before the market itself has matured, perhaps a lesson distilled from the trajectory of AI past and present.

A Room With Time in It

One of the most standout sessions of the full- day Quantum for Good: Industry leadership, innovation and real-world impact workshop was a panel moderated by Ulrich Mans, Strategic Partnerships Lead at Quantum Delta, where each speaker was asked to place themselves on a physical timeline, from near-term to far-future, based on how close they believed their representative quantum technology was to commercial application. based on how close they believed their representative quantum technology was to commercial application. The participants, drawn from both academia and industry, represented the full spectrum of quantum disciplines: computing, sensing, and communications.

The initial ask was deceptively simple enough. But as Ulrich moved down the row, asking each speaker to defend their placement, the timeline adjusted in real-time, providing the audience with a memorable visual cue to answer that elusive timeline question most public speakers within the quantum community fear. The usual evasions around quantum readiness couldn’t be dodged. It had to be answered publicly, and with context.

Each adjusted response spoke to readiness through reasoning. Quantum sensing appeared closest to impact. Communication and networking followed behind. Computation, especially fault-tolerant quantum computing, stayed cautiously on the outskirts. The point wasn’t to argue timelines, but to understand tradeoffs, technical hurdles, dependencies. The format surfaced an oft overlooked insight, that each has different needs. There is no singular quantum timeline. There are many, and they intersect with policy, standards, public understanding, and infrastructure in different ways.

Quantum sensing emerged as closest to real-world impact. Communication and networking followed at a measured distance. Computation, particularly fault-tolerant quantum computing, stayed cautiously on the margins. But the point wasn’t to declare winners or set fixed dates. It was to bring to the surface the very different challenges, interdependencies, and pace-setters within each domain. What this format uncovered was that there is no singular quantum timeline. There are many. Each unfolds according to different technical demands and ecosystem constraints. And each intersects differently with policy, public perception, infrastructure, and education.

Other dialogues of the full-day workshop included:

• Opening remarks: The day’s session opened with remarks from Seizo Onoe, the Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau at the International Telecommunication Union, Sameer Chauhan, the Director of the United Nations International Computing Centre, and Leandro Aolita, Acting Chief Researchers at the Quantum Research Center. The overall sentiment can be described as a shared acknowledgment that quantum is at a notable moment, defined as still early in its trajectory, yet urgent enough to demand global attention. Speakers emphasized that the field must be approached collaboratively, inclusively, and with purpose. Sameer Chauhan asked the necessary question “How do we not just harness this technology, but make sure that as large a part of humanity can benefit from it as possible?” asked Sameer Chauhan.

• Quick-fire: Quantum in Action: In a dynamic session moderated by Ulrich Mans, Strategic Partnerships Lead at Quantum Delta, panelists physically placed themselves on a 20-year timeline to reflect where their respective technologies currently sit, from near-term sensing products to longer-term visions for fault-tolerant quantum computing. A key point emerged around what’s technically “ready” and what’s truly relevant or impactful. Several panelists, including Microsoft’s Mathias Soeken, emphasized that the goal isn’t to build quantum computers for their own sake, but to “solve problems we cannot solve today,” using whatever tools are most effective. Across sensing, communication, and computing, the consensus was that while timelines vary, quantum’s trajectory must remain problem-driven, honest, and collaborative.

• From Idea to Impact: How Quantum is Transforming Sectors Today: This panel, moderated by Catherine Lefebvre of GESDA, explored how quantum technologies are beginning to serve real-world applications across water management, climate adaptation, and secure communication. From the Open Quantum Institute’s mission to promote “global, equitable and inclusive access to quantum computing,” to Gregoire Ribordy’s reminder that “the security here comes from the laws of quantum physics,” speakers emphasized the move from experimentation to deployment. As Joanna Doummar reflected, “I don’t even see this mountain in quantum computing”—a reminder that multidisciplinary collaboration contributes to minimizing barriers to entry and accelerating meaningful use cases.

• When the Code Breaks, Who Builds What Comes Next: This panel took on the urgent but often underestimated challenge of preparing for quantum-era security threats. As Mira Wolf-Bauwens noted, “We’re already too late,” and the quantum timeline is accelerating, reducing from “a decade away” to something far more immediate. Speakers emphasized the need for collaboration, inventory, and education: from Deborah’s call for standardization, collaboration, and certification to Microsoft’s three-layer approach — ask your cloud provider, your vendors, and check your own code. The message was clear that migration isn’t optional, and the clock is already counting down.

• Investing in the second quantum revolution: Scaling quantum innovation for real-world impact: This panel brought together leaders from QED-C, QuIC, and Q-STAR to explore how international quantum industry consortia are navigating collaboration in a geopolitically fragmented world. While acknowledging national security concerns and differing structures, all emphasized the need for cross-border cooperation, with Thierry Botter noting, “we saw the need for industry across the globe… to forge commonalities across our different regions.” Elif Kiesow highlighted the ethical imperative to proactively consider both the societal benefits and dual-use risks of quantum technologies, explaining, “we cannot really govern what we cannot measure.” Together, they reinforced that advancing quantum for global good requires a balance of openness, ethics, and shared standards.

• Quantum: Hype, Hope or Reality? In a final segment, Cierra Choucair, Strategic Content Director at The Quantum Insider, delivered a clear-eyed five-minute overview of the quantum technology industry, sifting through hype to focus on real signals of progress. Framing the session around the oft-repeated claim that quantum is at an “inflection point,” she broke the field into four key lenses (funding, commercialization, hardware, and awareness) and asked whether the data justifies that narrative. “Just because quantum computers do things,” she noted, “doesn’t necessarily mean they’re useful yet.” But with record funding projected in 2025, major announcements from tech leaders, and a growing public spotlight through initiatives like the International Year of Quantum, the momentum is both undeniable and increasingly global.

What made this full-day workshop truly distinctive was the way it created space for open, unguarded dialogue among members of the quantum community, conversations which are rarely seen outside private rooms. Throughout the day, members of the public filtered in, getting a rare window into the questions that usually stay behind technical jargon or closed-door strategy. Rather than centering on hardware specs or debates over fidelity and error correction, important, but for its own time and place, these sessions focused on tangible, forward-looking actions. What came of this was a more expansive map of what it means to build this field that includes cultural transformation, educational access, and infrastructural readiness. The panels allowed for disagreement, for multiple definitions of “readiness,” and for divergent visions of what quantum progress looks like. And in doing so, they offered something rare in fast-moving tech spaces, which is time to think together.

Discovery as a Purpose

If the timelines grounded us, a panel on the Solutions Stage importantly emphasized that investing in quantum isn’t just about commercialization, but about investing in foundational science. It’s a point often missed in economic development conversations, but with merit all the same.

Supporting quantum means supporting physics. Supporting physics means strengthening a society’s ability to reason, to experiment, to grapple with complexity. In a world saturated with information and misinformation alike, those are civic virtues. And when quantum investment is framed that way, as a cultural investment in knowledge itself, it becomes much harder to reduce the field to market projections and patent races.

If the timeline exercise gave us a way to orient ourselves in quantum’s near and distant futures, another theme running through the summit reminded us why the journey matters in the first place. On day two, on the Solutions Stage, an essential argument became apparent: that investing in quantum is a bet on commercialization, but more-so, it’s a declaration of belief in foundational science. That distinction may seem subtle, but in the context of short-term returns and geopolitical urgency, it’s a radical act.

To support quantum is to support physics. To support physics is to strengthen our collective capacity to reason, to experiment, to live with uncertainty. In an age defined by information overload and eroding public trust, those are civic virtues. When we frame quantum investment as a cultural investment in knowledge itself, it becomes harder to collapse the field into market metrics or patent races. It becomes something more timeless.

Other dialogues of day two included:

• Quantum Technology and Diplomacy: Why Should We Care? This panel brought together Ambassador Omar Zniber and quantum scientist-entrepreneur Eleni Diamanti to examine how diplomacy, governance, and science can co-evolve to guide quantum technologies toward public good. Ambassador Zniber emphasized the need for “a strong diplomatic action to make quantum technology available without hurdles,” particularly for regions like Africa facing development challenges. Diamanti called for the creation of anticipatory observatories—“bodies where scientists, industry, and policymakers co-design blueprints for responsible innovation”—before dual-use concerns outpace coordinated governance. Together, they reinforced a central theme: the time to shape inclusive, multilateral frameworks for quantum is now, not after the fact.

• Quantum for all: Innovation Access and Impact: This panel explored how to embed responsible innovation into the foundation of quantum development—before technologies mature. Drawing on lessons from nanotech and AI, Claire Shelley-Egan warned that “quantum for good” risks becoming an empty slogan unless we ask “whose good?” and acknowledge asymmetries in power and stakes. Justine Lacey emphasized that trust, fitness-for-purpose, and societal need must guide national strategies, backed by real evidence, not sentiment. And Mira Wolf-Bauwens called for safe, pre-competitive spaces where “researchers, diplomats, and industry can confront uncertainty together”—so we don’t just hype quantum, but shape it.

• Building Tommorows workforce: voices of future leaders in quantum: This panel spotlighted the rising generation of quantum leaders and the grassroots efforts filling gaps academia has yet to close. Hands-on lab access, clarity in career pathways, and early exposure remain major bottlenecks—“you need experience to get experience,” as Ben McDonough noted. But as Caden Kacmarynski emphasized, “communication trumps calculus”—and the future workforce is not only skilled but driven by purpose. Their call was clear: persistence, community, and early opportunity are the foundation for a quantum-literate society.

• Quantum for Good: Shaping the future of quantum – what happens next: In the closing keynote, Leandro Aolita offered a sweeping yet grounded perspective on the arc of scientific progress and where quantum stands today. Drawing a line from thermodynamics to transistors and now to entangled photons and superconducting qubits, he reminded the audience that “we don’t yet know the killer application of quantum computing—and the only way to find it is to build these machines.” Highlighting the full-stack R&D underway at Abu Dhabi’s Quantum Research Center, he emphasized that breakthroughs require “bold research, not shortcuts,” and that coordinated investment in both hardware and algorithms is essential. As Aolita concluded, quantum’s future demands more than hype—it demands deep work, shared vision, and a global commitment to doing the hard things.

A Moment of Translation

One of the more profound dynamics across the two days was the shadow cast by AI. Quantum, at this summit, arrived in tandem with another, more mature, more visible technology that has already been absorbed into public consciousness, with all the benefits and baggage that entails.

While AI is being put to the test through public backlash, rapid deployment, and regulatory uncertainty, quantum is still upstream. And that creates space to get the ethics right early, to have conversations about access and global inclusion before the field becomes too concentrated, and to ask who benefits, and who gets left behind. This summit positioned quantum not as the next AI, but as the one with time to reflect. And that posture, if it can be maintained, may prove to be one of the field’s greatest advantages.

A Means to a Beginning, Not an End

The final panel, Future standards for frontier tech: quantum, was moderated by myself and featureed Professor Qiang Zhang Executive Director at the Jinan Institute of Quantum Technology and professor at the University of Science and Technology of China. We explored the global stakes of standardization in quantum, from security and interoperability to equitable access. Professor Zhang emphasized that while quantum is “hardware-driven” and long-term in scope, now is the moment to sit down and discuss questions together to build trust and alignment before the technology matures.

We closed with four key announcements: the summit will return in 2026 with deeper cross-sector engagement; a QKD network will be piloted in Geneva between ITU and the UN ICC; a multilingual quantum literacy course is underway to support underserved regions; and The Quantum Insider and ITU will co-launch the Quantum World Tour this September to spotlight global ecosystems and foster transparent, collaborative development.

This is the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology. A time when global attention is finally turning toward a field that has, for decades, remained largely invisible outside research labs. But the question now is how to sustain that attention once the banners come down. The answer is that Quantum for Good isn’t a one-off event. It’s a space the community will have a place to ask questions about performance and about purpose. A place to discuss infrastructure and storytelling, global coordination and local education, hard science and human values.