5 ms·

The "Intermediate Report" [1] lists the authors as "Robert V. and Claude (Anthropic)". Is there any reason to believe this is not AI hallucinations? [1] https

by mkeeter 6mo ago

The "Intermediate Report" [1] lists the authors as "Robert V. and Claude (Anthropic)". Is there any reason to believe this is not AI hallucinations? [1] https://stateofutopia.com/papers/2/intermediate-report.pdf https://stateofutopia.com/papers/2/intermediate-report.pdf

logicallee 6mo ago
[flagged]
- kstrauser 6mo ago
  > You can use literally any MD5 tool > Our certificates implement the full SHA-256 algorithm We knew MD5 is broken. Do you have a POC for breaking SHA-256, too?
- Retr0id 6mo ago
  If you can't tell the difference between MD5 and SHA-256, you should not be making claims such as the one in the title.
  - logicallee 6mo ago
    edited to clarify, thanks for pointing it out. It wouldn't be responsible for us to only publish when we got to the same stage for SHA-256, since at that point TLS and other certificates would be considered compromised.
- seba_dos1 6mo ago
  > Great question, and you're right to be skeptical. Hi Claude! You're absolutely right!
  - thiht 6mo ago
    Got the same vibe from reading that sentence, reading AI replies on HN is so annoying…
pseudohadamard 6mo ago
Almost certainly. Someone no-one has ever heard of before driving a hallucinating AI claims to have done what the world's best cryptographers have been unable to do. Just wait a day or two for the first crypto person who notices to pick the claim to pieces.
- logicallee 6mo ago
  >Just wait a day or two for the first crypto person who notices to pick the claim to pieces. we went to cryptographic experts first and published second, after they said it is a very good result and worth publishing. We've given a lot of help for reproducibility, the c and python programs encode the claims very precisely and anyone can verify the claims in ten minutes. The bottom line is that you wouldn't have seen this article if cryptographers hadn't seen these results first and liked them.
  - Freak_NL 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - 66yatman 6mo ago
      Their/they
dolmen 6mo ago
None.

by mkeeter 6mo ago

logicallee 6mo ago

[flagged]

kstrauser 6mo ago
> You can use literally any MD5 tool > Our certificates implement the full SHA-256 algorithm We knew MD5 is broken. Do you have a POC for breaking SHA-256, too?
Retr0id 6mo ago
If you can't tell the difference between MD5 and SHA-256, you should not be making claims such as the one in the title.
- logicallee 6mo ago
  edited to clarify, thanks for pointing it out. It wouldn't be responsible for us to only publish when we got to the same stage for SHA-256, since at that point TLS and other certificates would be considered compromised.
seba_dos1 6mo ago
> Great question, and you're right to be skeptical. Hi Claude! You're absolutely right!
- thiht 6mo ago
  Got the same vibe from reading that sentence, reading AI replies on HN is so annoying…

pseudohadamard 6mo ago

Almost certainly. Someone no-one has ever heard of before driving a hallucinating AI claims to have done what the world's best cryptographers have been unable to do. Just wait a day or two for the first crypto person who notices to pick the claim to pieces.

logicallee 6mo ago
>Just wait a day or two for the first crypto person who notices to pick the claim to pieces. we went to cryptographic experts first and published second, after they said it is a very good result and worth publishing. We've given a lot of help for reproducibility, the c and python programs encode the claims very precisely and anyone can verify the claims in ten minutes. The bottom line is that you wouldn't have seen this article if cryptographers hadn't seen these results first and liked them.
- Freak_NL 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - 66yatman 6mo ago
    Their/they

dolmen 6mo ago

None.