I doubt it will ever stop. It's too appealing for journalists, and a lot easier than explaining the true state of affairs. I have story about this which I can't resist telling. It really annoyed me at the time, but with a few years distance I think it's both funny and illustrative of media stories about quantum computing.
In 2001, I was interviewed about quantum computing by a reporter (from the Sydney Morning Herald, if I recall correctly) who repeatedly asked me for a "simple, concrete explanation" of how quantum computers work.
If you take this request really (really!) literally, such an explanation probably isn't possible. If it was, you could efficiently simulate the elements of the explanation on a conventional computer, and quantum computers would offer no real advantage over conventional computers. In fact, in my opinion, what's interesting about quantum computing is precisely the gap between our ability to give such a simple, concrete explanation and what's really going on. You _can_ give a (fairly) simple indirect explanation of how they work - simple if someone's comfortable with complex numbers and vectors - but it is pretty indirect.
I explained this to the reporter, who made all the right noises, and then gave him the "simultaneously in all possible states" explanation as an example of the kind of nonsense that sounds good, but actually obscures the truth of what's going on.
You can probably guess the rest: when the article came out, I was in there, quoted saying something along the lines of "When a quantum computer is put to work on a problem, it considers all possible answer by simultaneously arranging..."
The problem is that this line is just too tempting and pat a story for reporters. It creates the illusion of understanding (in my opinion), while leaving the more complex truth undisturbed.
In 2001, I was interviewed about quantum computing by a reporter (from the Sydney Morning Herald, if I recall correctly) who repeatedly asked me for a "simple, concrete explanation" of how quantum computers work.
If you take this request really (really!) literally, such an explanation probably isn't possible. If it was, you could efficiently simulate the elements of the explanation on a conventional computer, and quantum computers would offer no real advantage over conventional computers. In fact, in my opinion, what's interesting about quantum computing is precisely the gap between our ability to give such a simple, concrete explanation and what's really going on. You _can_ give a (fairly) simple indirect explanation of how they work - simple if someone's comfortable with complex numbers and vectors - but it is pretty indirect.
I explained this to the reporter, who made all the right noises, and then gave him the "simultaneously in all possible states" explanation as an example of the kind of nonsense that sounds good, but actually obscures the truth of what's going on.
You can probably guess the rest: when the article came out, I was in there, quoted saying something along the lines of "When a quantum computer is put to work on a problem, it considers all possible answer by simultaneously arranging..."
The problem is that this line is just too tempting and pat a story for reporters. It creates the illusion of understanding (in my opinion), while leaving the more complex truth undisturbed.