{"api_version": 1, "episode_id": "ep_technology_now_c73935d6a9a9", "title": "Sixty years of innovation: how would we use a quantum computer?", "podcast": "Technology Now", "podcast_slug": "technology_now", "category": "tech", "publish_date": "2026-04-16T05:00:00+00:00", "audio_url": "https://media.transistor.fm/1882b47e/89fcde9d.mp3", "source_link": "https://share.transistor.fm/s/1882b47e", "cover_image_url": "https://img.transistorcdn.com/nYDFjEG-fThEtdAXrnu2os1rzNzLCZFefi7TtSm2z2I/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9jZjM4/NTQ1Zjg3YjZlMjAw/YmIxYzZiMTNiMzk2/YjdiOC5qcGc.jpg", "summary": "MASOUD MOHSENI there has been one thing constant that at any point if you ask a quantum competing researcher, when we will have, quantum computer, that will tell you it's 10 years away. So, at that time, 10 years was, the shortest time, it was the lower bound.", "key_takeaways": ["So, at that time, 10 years was, the shortest time, it was the lower bound", "SAM JARRELL So the answer is the same, but the context around its meaning has changed?", "MICHAEL BIRD Yeah it\u2019s an interesting one isn\u2019t it \u2013 and when you hear that clip from my interview with Dr Masoud Mohseni later, it\u2019ll probably make a little bit more sense in cont"], "best_for": ["listeners looking for a practical AI episode debrief"], "why_listen": "It goes beyond the title with direct discussion of quantum, like, bird, including: You would get the same answer back in early 2000, and you get almost the same answer today, but there is a difference.", "verdict": "worth_your_time", "guests": [], "entities": {}, "quotes": [], "chapters": [], "overall_score": 86.6, "score_breakdown": {"clarity": 78.8, "originality": 55.4, "hype_penalty": 3.9, "actionability": 100.0, "technical_depth": 98.5, "information_density": 100.0}, "score_evidence": {}, "score_reasoning": {}, "scoring_confidence": 0.98, "transcript_available": true, "transcript_chars": 22253, "transcript_provider": "publisher"}