TIL musk has a nobel peace prize nomination for this year
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2025
19 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1636 readers
104 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
@swlabr @techtakes Anybody can nominate: the true sign that the simulation has been handed over to drunken frat boys will be if he *wins*.
but would it beat peace nobel prize for kissinger?
I thought it might be that kind of deal. I learned of this when I saw a pair of op-eds, one saying a W is deserved and the other saying the nom was insane.
Kelsey Piper continues to bluecheck:
What would some good unifying demands be for a hostile takeover of the Democratic party by centrists/moderates?
As opposed to the spineless collaborators who run it now?
We should make acquiring ID documents free and incredibly easy and straightforward and then impose voter ID laws, paper ballots and ballot security improvements along with an expansion of polling places so everyone participates but we lay the 'was it a fair election' qs to rest.
Presuming that Republicans ever asked "was it a fair election?!" in good faith, like a true jabroni.
i know that it's about conservative crackheadery re:allegations of election fraud, but it's lowkey unhinged that americans don't have national ID. i also know that republicans blocked it, because they don't want problems solved, they want to stay mad about them. in poland for example, it's a requirement to have ID, it's valid for 10 years and it's free of charge. passport costs $10 to get and it takes a month, sometimes less, from filing a form to getting one. there's also a govt service where you can get some things done remotely, including govt supplied digital signature that you can use to sign files and is legally equivalent to regular signature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPUAP
I saw that yesterday. I was tempted to post it here but instead I've been trying very hard not to think of this eldritch fractal of wrongness. It's too much, man.
This isn't even skating towards where the puck is, it's skating in a fucking swimming pool.
What would some good unifying demands be for a hostile takeover of the Democratic party by centrists/moderates?
me, taking this at face value, and understanding the political stances of the democrats, and going by my definition of centrist/moderate that is more correct than whatever the hell Kelsey Piper thinks it means: Oh, this would actually push the democrats left.
Anyway, jesus christ I regret clicking on that name and reading. How the fuck is anyone this stupid. Vox needs to be burned down.
unifying demands
hostile takeover
Pick one, you can't have both.
Presuming that Republicans ever asked “was it a fair election?!” in good faith, like a true jabroni.
Imagine saying this after the birther movement remained when the birth certificate was shown. "Just admit you didnt fuck pigs, and this pigfucking will be gone".
those opinions should come with a whiplash warning, fucking hell
can’t wait to once again hear that someone is sure we’re “just overreacting” and that ~~star of david~~ ~~passbooks~~ voter ID laws will be totes fine. I’m sure it’ll be a really lovely conversation with a perfectly sensible and caring human. :|
Deep thinker asks why?
Thus spoketh the Yud: "The weird part is that DOGE is happening 0.5-2 years before the point where you actually could get an AGI cluster to go in and judge every molecule of government. Out of all the American generations, why is this happening now, that bare bit too early?"
Yud, you sweet naive smol uwu baby~~esian~~ boi, how gullible do you have to be to believe that a) tminus 6 months to AGI kek (do people track these dog shit predictions?) b) the purpose of DOGE is just accountability and definitely not the weaponized manifestation of techno oligarchy ripping apart our society for the copper wiring in the walls?
bahahahaha "judge every molecule." I can't believe I ever took this guy even slightly seriously.
The worst part is I can't tell if that's not meant to be taken literally or if it is.
Yud be like: "kek you absolute rubes. ofc I simply meant AI would be like a super accountant. I didn't literally mean it would be able to analyze gov't waste from studying the flow of matter at the molecular level... heh, I was just kidding... unless 🥺 ? "
He retweeted somebody saying this:
The cheat code to reading Yudkowsky- at least if you're not doing death-of-the-author stuff- is that he believes the AI doom stuff with completely literal sincerity. To borrow Orwell's formulation, he believes in it the way he believes in China.
That thread is quite something, going from "yud is extraordinarily thorough (much more thorough than i could possibly be) in examining the ground directly below a streetlamp, in his search for his keys", that 'he believes it like he believes in China' to 'honestly, i should be reading him. we have starkly different spiritual premises- and i smugly presume my spiritual premises are informed by better epistemology'
"judge every molecule" and "simulation hypothesis" probably have a bit of a fling going
"The AI is attuned to every molecular vibration and can reconstruct you by extrapolation from a piece of fairy cake" is a necessary premise of the Basilisk that they've spent all that time saying they don't believe in.
Quantum computing will enable the AGI to entangle with all surrounding molecular vibrations! I saw another press release today
ah, the novel QC RSA attack: shaking the algorithm so much it gets annoyed and gives up the plaintext out of desperation
Interesting slides: Peter Gutmann - Why Quantum Cryptanalysis is Bollocks
Since quantum computers are far outside my expertise, I didn't realize how far-fetched it currently is to factor large numbers with quantum computers. I already knew it's not near-future stuff for practical attacks on e.g. real-world RSA keys, but I didn't know it's still that theoretical. (Although of course I lack the knowledge to assess whether that presentation is correct in its claims.)
But also, while reading it, I kept thinking how many of the broader points it makes also apply to the AI hype... (for example, the unfounded belief that game-changing breakthroughs will happen soon).
It's been frustrating to watch Gutmann slowly slide. He hasn't slid that far yet, I suppose. Don't discount his voice, but don't let him be the only resource for you to learn about quantum computing; fundamentally, post-quantum concerns are a sort of hard read in one direction, and Gutmann has decided to try a hard read in the opposite direction.
Page 19, complaining about lattice-based algorithms, is hypocritical; lattice-based approaches are roughly as well-studied as classical cryptography (Feistel networks, RSA) and elliptic curves. Yes, we haven't proven that lattice-based algorithms have the properties that we want, but we haven't proven them for classical circuits or over elliptic curves, either, and we nonetheless use those today for TLS and SSH.
Pages 28 and 29 are outright science denial and anti-intellectualism. By quoting Woit and Hossenfelder — who are sneerable in their own right for writing multiple anti-science books each — he is choosing anti-maths allies, which is not going to work for a subfield of maths like computer science or cryptography. In particular, p28 lies to the reader with a doubly-bogus analogy, claiming that both string theory and quantum computing are non-falsifiable and draw money away from other research. This sort of closing argument makes me doubt the entire premise.
Thanks for adding the extra context! As I said, I don't have the necessary level of knowledge in physics (and also in cryptography) to have an informed opinion on these matters, so this is helpful. (I've wanted to get deeper in both topics for a long time, but life and everything has so far not allowed for it.)
About your last paragraph, do you by chance have any interesting links on "criticism of the criticism of string theory"? I wonder, because I have heard the argument "string theory is non-falsifiable and weird, but it's pushed over competing theories by entrenched people" several times already over the years. Now I wonder, is that actually a serious position or just conspiracy/crank stuff?
Comparing quantum computing to time machines or faster-than-light travel is unfair. In order for the latter to exist, our understanding of physics would have to be wrong in a major way. Quantum computing presumes that our understanding of physics is correct. Making it work is "only" an engineering problem, in the sense that Newton's laws say that a rocket can reach the Moon, so the Apollo program was "only" a engineering project. But breaking any ciphers with it is a long way off.
Comparing quantum computing to time machines or faster-than-light travel is unfair.
I didn't interpret the slides as an attack on quantum computing per se, but rather an attack on over-enthusiastic assertions of its near-future implications. If the likelihood of near-future QC breaking real-world cryptography is so extremely low, it's IMO okay to make a point by comparing it to things which are (probably) impossible. It's an exaggeration of course, and as you point out the analogy isn't correct in that way, but I still think it makes a good point.
What I find insightful about the comparison is that it puts the finger on a particular brain worm of the tech world: the unshakeable belief that every technical development will grow exponentially in its capabilities. So as soon as the most basic version of something is possible, it is believed that the most advanced forms of it will follow soon after. I think this belief was created because it's what actually happened with semiconductors, and of course the bold (in its day) prediction that was Moore's law, and then later again, the growth of the internet.
And now this thinking is applied to everything all the time, including quantum computers (and, as I pointed to in my earlier post, AI), driven by hype, by FOMO, by the fear of "this time I don't want to be among those who didn't recognize it early". But there is no inherent reason why a development should necessarily follow such a trajectory. That doesn't mean of course that it's impossible or won't get there eventually, just that it may take much more time.
So in that line of thought, I think it's ok to say "hey look everyone, we have very real actual problems in cryptography that need solving right now, and on the other hand here's the actual state and development of QC which you're all worrying about, but that stuff is so far away you might just as well worry about time machines, so please let's focus more on the actual problems of today." (that's at least how I interpret the presentation).
heh yup. I think the most recent one (somewhere in the last year) was something like 12-bit rsa? stupendously far off from being a meaningful thing
I’ll readily admit to being a cryptography mutt and a qc know-barely-anything, and even from my limited understanding the assessment of where people are at (with how many qubits they’ve managed to achieve in practical systems) everything is hilariously woefully far off ito attacks
that doesn’t entirely invalidate pqc and such (since the notion there is not merely defending against today/soon but also a significant timeline)
one thing I am curious about (and which you might’ve seen or be able to talk about, blake): is there any kind of known correlation between qubits and viable attacks? I realize part of this quite strongly depends on the attack method as well, but off the cuff I have a guess (“intuition” is probably the wrong word) that it probably scales some weird way (as opposed to linear/log/exp)
I've been listening to faster and worse (see https://awful.systems/comment/6216748 ) and I like it so I wanted to give it ups.
(I think this and the memory palace are the only micro podcasts I've listened to. idk why it isn't a more common format)
thanks! It might be uncommon because it's a real pain in the ass to keep it short. Every time I make one I stress about how easily my point can be misunderstood because there are so few details. Good way to practice the art of moving on
if it's any reassurance, i've understood all your points perfectly! you're basically making an argument for all UI to be more apple-like
holy shit, I really don't know if this is real or a joke
:)
EDIT: ok it was a joke
really, thanks for listening! It's fun making them and nice to know they are being listened to
this is also why pivot to AI is mostly 200-250 words, not 1200 or 2000 or 8000
It's probably more sensible for me to try writing short bits too, instead of faffing around with videos
apparently video is just huuuuge
ran into this earlier (via techmeme, I think?), and I just want to vent
“The biggest challenge the industry is facing is actually talent shortage. There is a gap. There is an aging workforce, where all of the experts are going to retire in the next five or six years. At the same time, the next generation is not coming in, because no one wants to work in manufacturing.”
"whole industries have fucked up on actually training people for a run going on decades, but no the magic sparkles will solve the problem!!!11~"
But when these new people do enter the space, he added, they will know less than the generation that came before, because they will be more interchangeable and responsible for more (due to there being fewer of them).
I forget where I read/saw it, but sometime in the last year I encountered someone talking about "the collapse of ..." wrt things like "travel agent", which is a thing that's mostly disappeared (on account of various kinds of services enabling previously-impossible things, e.g. direct flights search, etc etc) but not been fully replaced. so now instead of popping a travel agent a loose set of plans and wants then getting back options, everyone just has to carry that burden themselves, badly
and that last paragraph reminds me of exactly that nonsense. and the weird "oh don't worry, skilled repair engineers can readily multiclass" collapse equivalence really, really, really grates
sometimes I think these motherfuckers should be made to use only machines maintained under their bullshit processes, etc. after a very small handful of years they'll come around. but as it stands now it'll probably be a very "for me not for thee" setup
what pisses me off even more is that parts of the idea behind this are actually quite cool and worthwhile! just..... the entire goddamn pitch. ew.
view more: next ›