4 ms·
I know people (especially around here) hate it when people just post AI output, and I generally agree, since it is trivial for anyone else who is interested to
by MostlyStable 6mo ago
I know people (especially around here) hate it when people just post AI output, and I generally agree, since it is trivial for anyone else who is interested to do the same thing. However, the majority of the comments here are from people seemingly asking the author (or someone else) to explain how significant this is, without having taken that step themselves. So while I normally wouldn't do this, in this case it seems helpful. Claude thought the paper was interesting and had a novel cryptographic technique, but that the claims of near-term breaking of the SHA-256 algorithm to be unsupported. Here's the conversation:
https://claude.ai/share/b10b95ef-5d9f-43dd-9005-3d1d89f9dbc1 https://claude.ai/share/b10b95ef-5d9f-43dd-9005-3d1d89f9dbc1
- dylan604 6mo agoDoes the fact that Claude wrote the paper help Claude to think the paper was interesting? <facepalm> I'd suggest sticking to your "I don't normally do this" idea
- kstrauser 6mo agoThat's not how this works, though. I don't care if the method is interesting. I care if it works. I can write an interesting proof that P=NP but that doesn't make it valid. It's on the author to explain what they mean. Here, they haven't.
- pixelpoet 6mo agoExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law - > The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
- newobj 6mo agoClaude didn't "think" anything