How else to explain that almost a century after the most successful modern physics theory has been coined leading experts in the field can still not agree on how to interpret it?
Unsurprisingly, my favorite interpretation of QM, Ulrich Mohrhoff's Pondicherry Interpretation, is such a dark horse candidate it did not even make the list.
In accordance with this main confusion, the view on the role of the observer is also all over the map:
The majority settles on a statement that no matter how I try to parse it, doesn't make any sense to me: If our formalism describes nature correctly, and the observer plays a fundamental role in the latter, how is it supposed to not occupy a distinguished physical role? The cognitive dissonance to take this stance is dizzying. At least the quantum hippie choice of option (d) has some internal consistency.
So it shouldn't come as a surprise that with regard to quantum computing these experts are as ignorant as the public at large and completely ignore that D-Wave is already shipping a quantum computer (if the phrasing was about a universal quantum computer these results would have been easier to tolerate). Invited to opine on the availability of the first working and useful quantum computer this was the verdict:
The paper contains another graph that could almost parse as a work of art, it visualizes the medium to strong correlation between the survey answers. To me it is the perfect illustration for the current State of Physics with regards to the interpretation of quantum mechanics:
It is a mess.
Given this state of affairs it's small wonder that one of my heros, Carver Mead, recently described the QM revolution that started in the early last century as an aborted one. It is indeed time to kick-start it again.