4 ms·
that tinfoil hat theory, just as basically all of them, can only be produced by people that have absolutely zero understanding of the topic. The amount of chall
by artemonster 2y ago
that tinfoil hat theory, just as basically all of them, can only be produced by people that have absolutely zero understanding of the topic. The amount of challenges that industry has faced during the relatively fast progress through nodes is just non skippable, as there were so many things to be discovered through very expensive and long brute force (just one example: high k dielectrics)
- fooker 2y agoNo, you can absolutely make specialized chips that are orders of magnitude better than the commercial state of the art if you don't care about mass production or operational costs. I can bet there are superconductor/photonics/topologically different/strange memory/smaller process size prototypes around. Right now we are getting to the limits of transistor sizes, but even a couple of years ago experimental prototypes of smaller process size were developed years before mass production.
- artemonster 2y agowhere you get this nonsense? I am from semicon industry, so please, sources for the claim "orders of magnitude better"
- fooker 2y agoLook at the history of 5nm process for example, from the first prototypes to mass production. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process
- LeifCarrotson 2y agoWell sure, at many orders of magnitude more cost. If you wanted to brute-force RSA, you'd be better off leveraging economies of scale to operate ten thousand current-gen 4nm GPUs running at 2 GHz with air coolers than a single exotic prototype 1nm ASIC running at 8 GHz with cryogenic cooling. Aside from LCS35, most cryptographic problems are about as easy with two processors that are half as fast as one processor that costs twice as much.
- rowanG077 2y agoThat is if your problem is parallelizable. There are a ton of sequential problems that are hard or impossible to break up.
- voxic11 2y agoWhat would be an example that the NSA would be interested in?
- rowanG077 2y agoWell I'm not an NSA engineer but I can imagine complex real-time analysis of streaming data, think processing 400+GbE link data. It quickly becomes too much too store, analysis could impose sequential packet dependencies.
- almostgotcaught 2y ago> No, you can absolutely make specialized chips proof? i'm just like... where? where do you think people are making these chips and using which ovens? > smaller process size prototypes around no there aren't. there just aren't. you could hide this in your basement about as easily as you could hide building your own space shuttle (and launching).
- TwoPhonesOneKid 2y ago> no there aren't. there just aren't. You do realize we all know it's impossible to have any degree of certainty in asserting the non-existence of something, right?
- artemonster 2y agoThis is highly stupid argument, honestly. burden of proof lies on people that make idiot claims
- TwoPhonesOneKid 2y agoHume is deeply disappointed in you.
- voxic11 2y agoYou can always turn a claim into a logically equivalent claim of the non-existence of any counterexamples. “For every instance, e equals mc²” is logically equivalent to “There is no instance where e does not equal mc².” That combined with your belief that claims of non-existence can't be held with any degree of certainty means you believe that no claim can ever be held with any degree of certainty. Which is not a very interesting insight.
- TwoPhonesOneKid 2y agoThis is an equally unsupportable claim, though. This requires enumeration of the entire state of the universe, an impossibility. This is just the standard swan problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory). What you have is a model you're very confident in without the deductively-rational basis your diction implies. People should really read more hume if they're going to weigh in on philosophy of science.