Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 199 posts

Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude

#71

Post by estearum »

charcircuit wrote: post #66
estearum wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all interrelated points and the sibling comment is correct: it's a skill. The key thing with these voice systems is that you do not need to edit anything. You can literally just stream of consciousness into them, no editing, include the backtracking, the live-revisions, etc., and it will actually all produce vastly better context for the LLM than the written thing you took even 30 seconds to edit for clarit…

You don't need to edit anything when you are typing either. You don't even need to worry about spelling or typos.

Seems much harder to learn how to write how you never write, versus just learning to speak to a computer the same way you speak to anything else.

Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude

#72

Post by rurban »

dboreham wrote: post #60
rurban wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we still need CLAUDE.md to override bad system prompt goals. The system prompt goes for the simple fast solution, no error handling, no hardening, no abstractions, but overly verbose comments. Vast amount of people need to override this AI slop.

Never once had to do that, fwiw.

You'll get better code if you do

Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude

#73

Post by ch4s3 »

impulser_ wrote: post #43
_dwt wrote: post #22

I find that some of my friends and acquaintances have gotten obsessed with prompting style, "prompt engineering", which skills to use, which skills to build, "context engineering", and a billion other variations on "how to write smart things so the model does good". Friends, look at the prompts that Anthropic's own people are putting into the machine: > A few hours after the first message, we found that Claude was st…

Yeah, in fact you can actually make the model perform worst. You should allow the model to "think for itself" instead of pushing your reasoning into the prompt. You should give it simple prompt and steer it along the way. Skills, CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md should only ever be used if the model struggle at something or doesn't know how to use something. Vast majority of project should never need a skill or CLAUDE.md. If you…

The only repos I find skills particularly useful for are in small languages with useful new tools. For elixir I have some tools pointing to cicada[1] for code search because it's better than grep and meaningfully reduces churn.

[1]https://github.com/wende/cicada

Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude

#74

Post by AsyncBanana »

_dwt wrote: post #22

I find that some of my friends and acquaintances have gotten obsessed with prompting style, "prompt engineering", which skills to use, which skills to build, "context engineering", and a billion other variations on "how to write smart things so the model does good". Friends, look at the prompts that Anthropic's own people are putting into the machine: > A few hours after the first message, we found that Claude was st…

"prompt engineering" in general just boggles my mind. It is amazing how all of this investment has just created software that doesn't follow instructions well.

Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude

#75

Post by avadodin »

_dwt wrote: post #22

I find that some of my friends and acquaintances have gotten obsessed with prompting style, "prompt engineering", which skills to use, which skills to build, "context engineering", and a billion other variations on "how to write smart things so the model does good". Friends, look at the prompts that Anthropic's own people are putting into the machine: > A few hours after the first message, we found that Claude was st…

vibe typing the mumble prompts?

> we anthropig fire employes makr company run no mistkaes

Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude

#76

Post by ElFitz »

_dwt wrote: post #22

I find that some of my friends and acquaintances have gotten obsessed with prompting style, "prompt engineering", which skills to use, which skills to build, "context engineering", and a billion other variations on "how to write smart things so the model does good". Friends, look at the prompts that Anthropic's own people are putting into the machine: > A few hours after the first message, we found that Claude was st…

Funnily enough, I grew tired of having to do that myself and sort of automated it by triggering calls to the same (or smarter) model, with the recent agent actions, turns, and outputs, and the user’s last n and first x messages.

Two triggers: random and some half-reliable spiral / loop detection.

The spined off has instructions to check what the agent is doing, compare it to what it’s supposed to do, and either offer suggestions, refocus it, or do nothing. And its response then gets injected in the agent’s context.

Not perfect, but surprisingly effective for such a simple thing.

Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude

#77

Post by _ache_ »

Retr0id wrote: post #7

TL;DR: They marginally improved on the best known academic attack on 7-round AES-128 (which normally uses 10 rounds - you do not need to worry about AES being broken). The attack on HAWK is perhaps more interesting - they were able to halve the effective key length. HAWK is a candidate for NIST standardisation. It has been studied academically, but isn't really deployed anywhere (because it hasn't been standardised!)

Note that HAWK-256 is also a simpler version of the proposed HAWK standard. But yeah, à priori it may apply to HAWK-512 too, so looks like a big found.

https://hawk-sign.info/

PS: Never heard of LEA, looks like a Korean cryptography standard equivalent to AES. I don't know what was the previous best attack on it. Maybe weak or strong depending on that, since it's an attack on chosen-text.

Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude

#78

Post by connorboyle »

_dwt wrote: post #22

I find that some of my friends and acquaintances have gotten obsessed with prompting style, "prompt engineering", which skills to use, which skills to build, "context engineering", and a billion other variations on "how to write smart things so the model does good". Friends, look at the prompts that Anthropic's own people are putting into the machine: > A few hours after the first message, we found that Claude was st…

Been skeptical for quite some time that "using AI" is a real skill/genuine field of expertise. I think I need to start sharing that skepticism more loudly and publicly!

(I'll caveat that by saying I think machine learning fundamentals are useful for evaluating any estimator. And an ML background can be good to give one an appreciation of how hard some tasks are to estimate, such as machine translation, summarization, code generation, and others)

Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude

#79

Post by 8note »

AsyncBanana wrote: post #74
_dwt wrote: post #22

I find that some of my friends and acquaintances have gotten obsessed with prompting style, "prompt engineering", which skills to use, which skills to build, "context engineering", and a billion other variations on "how to write smart things so the model does good". Friends, look at the prompts that Anthropic's own people are putting into the machine: > A few hours after the first message, we found that Claude was st…

"prompt engineering" in general just boggles my mind. It is amazing how all of this investment has just created software that doesn't follow instructions well.

idk, its continued attempts at writing down in detail the processes and culture your setup wants to have

its not really a loss to try the writing and at worst you have a better idea of what it is that you want

Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude

#80

Post by 8note »

jhogervorst wrote: post #64
jstanley wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so bizarre to me that people want to do this. Can't you type faster than you speak? Doesn't your speaking inhibit your thinking? Aren't you self-conscious talking out loud? How are our experiences so different?

> Can't you type faster than you speak? Doesn't your speaking inhibit your thinking? For me personally: no, I speak faster than I type; and speaking actually helps me get more ideas compared to typing. (Not sure if that’s due to having no typing speed barrier, or maybe because speaking activates different parts of the brain.) Once you get over the feeling of self-consciousness, it’s a great way. I even go on short wa…

do you perchance have no inner monologue? its a physical difference in how people think that would affect typing vs talking
Post reply on HN