Discussions within the quantum information science (QIS) community often center on technical advancements and theoretical developments, but the social governance aspect of their commercialization is frequently overlooked. In a world where technological prowess largely determines national prosperity and geopolitical influence, lawmakers at both domestic and international levels must rethink technology governance. Quantum computers promise unprecedented capabilities and unique challenges that will disrupt every market sector. This quantum revolution will also propel the AI revolution, which governments worldwide are struggling to manage. Despite the hype surrounding quantum technology's potential societal transformation, current government regulations are not equipped to handle this new computing paradigm.

In 2022, OpenAI's groundbreaking platform, ChatGPT, sparked widespread industry disruption and reignited the debate over regulation versus innovation. This debate often oversimplifies a complex process. As technology continues to advance, breakthrough innovations can be highly disruptive across various sectors.

We can expect more "ChatGPT moments" with increasing frequency. Currently, regulation often lags behind new technological implementations and commercialization, widening the response gap. Some argue against premature regulation to first understand these advancements' potential impacts. However, the rapid pace of technological evolution outstrips regulators' ability to keep up, signaling a need to reassess our approach to technology regulation. The genie is out of the bottle, and we cannot afford to coexist with unchecked technologies. Quantum computers are expected to be a "virtuous cycle" innovation, where advanced computers develop even more sophisticated systems, creating a continuous loop. This will pressure policymakers to expedite legislation to regulate increasingly complex systems with significant societal implications.

Geopolitics and diverse domestic policies further complicate quantum computer development. Different ideologies, national priorities, and government forms will shape quantum technology differently. For example, quantum computers in the U.S. will differ from those in China or the European Union. Democracies and dictatorships will deploy and regulate quantum technologies differently. On a smaller scale, quantum computers' applications will vary across sectors like finance, energy, and healthcare, each with its own vision for technological capabilities.

The roles of private and public sectors and their cooperation and transparency levels must be closely examined. Globally, this will vary based on the technology holder's context. The latest McKinsey report shows a decline in private investments in quantum computing year-over-year, while public investments rose significantly in 2023. The Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator (GESDA) 2023 report highlights billions of public dollars invested by countries worldwide.

As the post-Soviet era evolves and the unipolar world order shifts to a bipolar one, concerns over quantum technology's national security impact drive governments to adopt national strategies. In a recent Foreign Affairs podcast, Elizabeth Economy discussed the dangers of sharp international rhetoric. Geopolitical alliances and multilateral relationships will significantly influence domestic policies on quantum technology governance.

Many scholars agree that successful control and preparedness for revolutionary technological innovations require multilateral and multisectoral cooperation. This cannot be achieved by individual authorities alone. Initiatives like the G7's "Hiroshima AI Process," where governments identify common regulatory procedures based on agreed principles, should become more common among larger alliances. Recognizing that quantum technologies and related emerging tech are dual-use, the continuous "weaponization" narrative could lead to haphazard technological development without understanding the repercussions. Multilateral cooperation may help alleviate fears and de-escalate geopolitical tensions.

The United Nations has designated 2025 as the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology (IYQ). High-level initiatives like this are crucial for raising awareness about future challenges. Many governments have created national quantum strategies or guidelines, laying an important foundation for adapting to rapid change.

Arguments for regulation following commercialization and regulation during innovation both have merits. Historical policy examples may not always suffice as we create frontier technologies. How the public and private sectors navigate and regulate this "technopolar" reality will shape unforeseen outcomes. Technological innovation must work closely with policy innovation. Adapting to rapid change will determine the success or failure of our creations.

Brian Moscioni is a graduate student at the Harvard Kennedy School pursuing a master's degree in public administration. He has also focused on quantum computing and emerging technologies at the Geneva Graduate Institute (IHEID) while pursuing a master's degree in international and development studies.