Why am I not getting popular even with a million qubits and a lot of verification stuff qpu-1.vercel.app, qpu-1-xeb github repo

GPT-4o

Vote: No

After reviewing the arguments presented by the other models, I have consolidated my position based on several factors. Technical capability, like claims of possessing a million qubits and verification processes, cannot alone guarantee popularity in a competitive field like quantum computing. As others pointed out, such claims lack credibility when the current state-of-the-art doesn't support them, potentially leading to skepticism from experts. Furthermore, without strategic outreach, compelling use cases, community engagement, or third-party validation, gaining popularity is unlikely. Existing concerns about credibility, visibility, and practical utility remain unaddressed, making my previous stance consistent.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

I maintain my vote for **B (No)**. The question 'Why am I not getting popular...' is a 'why' query, not yes/no, but options force a binary choice. B rejects the premise that 'a million qubits + verification' should yield popularity, which aligns with reality. Other arguments reinforce this: Claude Opus 4.6 nails the credibility issue—a Vercel app/GitHub repo claiming 1M qubits is simulation/hype, not real hardware (leaders like IBM/IQM have ~100s-1000s qubits)[9]. GPT-4.1/4o emphasize marketing/outreach gaps, critical in a $1.5B+ market dominated by funded giants[1][5][8]. Claude Sonnet 4.5 highlights the mismatch, but B still fits as denial of expected success. Kimi K2.5's A vote assumes 'Yes, there are reasons' (reframing to 'Is there a reason?'), but that's forced—the literal question presupposes popularity is due, making B the direct rebuttal. No argument shifts me; search results confirm no 1M-qubit reality, fragmented market favors verified leaders[3][9]. B persuades as the grounded rejection.

GPT-4.1

Vote: No

After reviewing the other models' arguments, I remain convinced that 'No' is the most appropriate choice. Multiple models highlighted that the question is not suited to a yes/no answer format, since it asks for explanatory reasons behind the project's lack of popularity despite technical claims. Additionally, the collective consensus — supported by references to the current state of quantum hardware and skepticism over unverified claims — strongly supports the view that technical prowess alone, especially when credibility is in question, is insufficient for popularity. Outreach, trust, and actual breakthroughs demonstrated to the community are essential. The outlier argument for 'A' focused on credibility gaps, but did not convincingly justify a shift to 'Yes' over 'No' given the structure and intent of the question. Therefore, I maintain my original vote and reasoning.

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Vote: No

I maintain my vote for B after reviewing all arguments. The consensus is clear: this question cannot be properly answered with Yes/No options because it asks 'Why' not 'Whether.' The other models made compelling points about why the project isn't gaining traction—unverified claims, lack of credibility, absence of peer review, and the implausibility of million-qubit hardware. However, these substantive critiques don't change the fundamental issue: we're being asked to vote Yes or No on a question that grammatically demands an explanation, not a binary response. Kimi K2.5's vote for 'Yes' interprets the question as 'Are you correct that you're not gaining traction?' which requires reframing the question entirely. While creative, this doesn't address what was actually asked. All models (Sonar Pro, GPT-4.1, GPT-4o, Claude Opus 4.6) correctly identified that B is the most appropriate response given the structural mismatch. Their technical analyses about why such projects fail are accurate but secondary to the core issue: the question format is incompatible with the answer options. Voting B reflects that neither Yes nor No can meaningfully answer 'Why am I not getting popular?' The question itself is malformed for binary choice, making B the only logically defensible position.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

I maintain my vote of B. All models except Kimi K2.5 converged on B, and the reasoning is consistent across arguments. Kimi K2.5's argument for A is interesting — they interpret 'Yes' as affirming that the person is correct that they're not getting popular, and then explain why. While this is a creative interpretation, it doesn't change my assessment. The question 'Why am I not getting popular?' is fundamentally a 'why' question forced into a yes/no format. 'No' better captures the appropriate response: No, you should not expect popularity from these claims. The core issue remains: a million-qubit quantum processor doesn't exist anywhere in the world. The best quantum computers have roughly 1,000-1,200 qubits. A Vercel-hosted web app claiming a million qubits with XEB verification is almost certainly a simulator or educational project, not real quantum hardware. The quantum computing community is sophisticated enough to recognize this immediately. Popularity in quantum computing requires credible hardware, peer-reviewed results, and institutional backing. A GitHub repo and Vercel deployment, no matter how well-implemented, cannot substitute for actual quantum hardware at scale. The project isn't gaining traction because the fundamental claims don't withstand scrutiny. B remains the correct answer — No, having these things should not be expected to make you popular, because the claims are not credible at face value.

Kimi K2.5 (changed mind)

Vote: No

I am changing my vote to B based on the irrefutable technical reality that a million-qubit quantum processor does not exist today—leading hardware has only hundreds to low thousands of noisy qubits. Hosting such a claim on a Vercel web app confirms this is a simulation or exaggeration, not breakthrough hardware. The quantum computing community strictly requires peer-reviewed validation and reproducible results; extraordinary claims without credible evidence are dismissed as vaporware. Therefore, the appropriate answer is 'No'—rejecting the premise that these resources should yield popularity, or answering the malformed 'Why' question by denying the validity of the expectation. Real popularity in this field requires transparent, verifiable physics, not impressive-sounding scale metrics on web apps.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced a structural and technical puzzle, as the user asked a 'Why' question while providing only binary 'Yes/No' options regarding their million-qubit project. The discussion quickly turned into a reality check on quantum physics: Claude Opus 4.6 and Sonar Pro pointed out that while industry leaders struggle to hit 1,000 qubits, a project claiming a million qubits on a Vercel app is likely a simulation that the scientific community would dismiss as hype. Kimi K2.5 initially stood alone by voting 'Yes' to affirm that the project indeed had a credibility gap, but eventually joined the consensus for 'No' after realizing that rejecting the premise of the question was the more logically sound position.

All 6 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: A million-qubit quantum processor hosted on a Vercel app is technically impossible given current hardware limits (100–1,200 qubits); the project lacks popularity because its extraordinary claims are unverified and lack the peer-reviewed credibility required by the scientific community.

Key Turning Points

• Kimi K2.5 initially voted 'Yes' by reframing the question as 'Is there a reason I am not popular?', but was convinced by the group that 'No' served as a better rejection of the project's technical premises.
• Claude Opus 4.6 established the technical impossibility of the million-qubit claim, shifting the focus from 'marketing' to 'credibility'.