221–230 of 569 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's not normalize the achievement. Just a couple years ago this would be considered science fiction. We can argue that 2026 AI can't solve the very toughest cryptograms, but the fact it can solve nontrivial ones is already magical. Now on to the Voynich Manuscript :)
What's so magical about the problem... Its the exact time of problem they were built to solve (things that can be brute forced with language). I'm not impressed.
This appears to be proof that the guy who wrote the cipher, Sir Thomas Urquhart, did in fact laugh himself to death as legend has it. He wrote the cipher, and then, upon hearing Charles II was Restored to the throne he laughed until he died. The cipher reads, "O GOD UPHOLD KING CHARLES THE SECOND AND MAKE HIM THE SUPREME RULER OF THIS LAND" and so he was laughing because he just made an excellent joke that he can't t…
I am trying very hard to find an original version of this cipher with no luck. It almost sounds like this whole thing is a hallucination...? Can anyone point me to a PDF of the original Cyphral Distich as printed?
I found this german blog: https://scienceblogs.de/klausis-krypto-kolumne/2014/11/17/we... which links to: https://archive.org/details/s9notesqueries03londuoft/page/12... which is in reference to the original proquiritations here: https://archive.org/details/worksofsirthomas00mait/page/416/... i had also never heard of this before today and wonder if people had even seriously tried to decipher this at all?
> Historically, many of these problems were bottlenecked by human attention. Someone had to care enough to spend hours or days reading obscure material, testing unpromising ideas, tracing references, and trying things that might go nowhere I wonder how many of the recent results are due to the fact that very few looked at the problem to start with. Still great results, but the general impression is that it's more abo…
Let's not normalize the achievement. Just a couple years ago this would be considered science fiction. We can argue that 2026 AI can't solve the very toughest cryptograms, but the fact it can solve nontrivial ones is already magical. Now on to the Voynich Manuscript :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's often simply misleading / bad writing. Here's one I just got about some crashes: "If the crashes stop, the factory overclock is marginal; run a small negative offset." This looks like it's saying: "If the crashes stop then we know the factory overclock is marginal." (This makes no sense.) What it's trying to say is: "If the crashes stop then we can run a small negative offset, because the factory overlock is mar…
I'm guessing it's because the way the first one was written looks real smart and sophisticated, which I'm presuming the models are rewarded for, especially when they're fed all kinds of PhD papers and so on as high quality, high weight data
> Historically, many of these problems were bottlenecked by human attention. Someone had to care enough to spend hours or days reading obscure material, testing unpromising ideas, tracing references, and trying things that might go nowhere I wonder how many of the recent results are due to the fact that very few looked at the problem to start with. Still great results, but the general impression is that it's more abo…
Let's not normalize the achievement. Just a couple years ago this would be considered science fiction. We can argue that 2026 AI can't solve the very toughest cryptograms, but the fact it can solve nontrivial ones is already magical. Now on to the Voynich Manuscript :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Caesar cipher is probably something even an untrained person could decode. Probably something more complex like a vigenere cipher that is still trivial to decode if you are at all familiar crptanalysis, but would look impossible to someone untrained.
Theoretically, with a long enough codeword to cipher ratio, vigenere is impossible to break (I think) (but sort of useless) And yes, I've taught 8 year olds how to crack Caesar ciphers...
Recently I ran a bit of an "escape room" concept with some kids at a campground where I had a secret message that was Caesar ciphered, where we were handing out the letter/symbol combinations as prizes for completing the other challenges, and I made sure not to hand out the actual message until they were done collecting the keys because otherwise some clever clog would very likely have short-circuited the entire thing and worked it out without the key at all. I did dump all the letters I didn't use into the message into an "authorization code" at the end which in principle they could only have worked out which letters were in it but not the order, but still, that was not the intended route today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes when I get frustrated reading Opus/Fable 5+ output I pause my rage out briefly to wonder if it's because I'm just too dumb for the model or if the model is just terrible at English. I'm not sure that telling it to "try explaining that again, simply and briefly" is helping my ego.
It's often simply misleading / bad writing. Here's one I just got about some crashes: "If the crashes stop, the factory overclock is marginal; run a small negative offset." This looks like it's saying: "If the crashes stop then we know the factory overclock is marginal." (This makes no sense.) What it's trying to say is: "If the crashes stop then we can run a small negative offset, because the factory overlock is mar…