Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is against HN ethos to be make bold claims about things you know nothing about.
This may be the funniest comment ever put on HN.
There may have been some tongue-in-cheek there... but Adam Back is not Satoshi.
Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
421–430 of 569 posts
Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an incredibly useless comment. You state a conclusion as fact without any supportive reasoning/evidence. Prove that human intellect is different and that we solve problems using fundamentally different processes. I’m waiting.
"Prove"? Like, a formal proof, about intelligence?
yeah you know, that concept we've never been able to define using language, making heavy use of the human experience which can also not be captured in language (proof: how bad LLMs are at poetry)
the question is, when comparing a human and a large language model, whether the intellect (that cannot be captured in language) is different from anything the language model can actually do (e.g. language)
the answer to this seems quite obvious to me, and I would actually posit that the onus is on the other side, to prove they are even remotely similar
maybe people think that the voice in their heads is what is doing the thinking? is that the confusion here?
Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
Howabout getting an LLM to decipher the password of wallet containing those coins. Surely the point must have come where the required compute would be paid off by the value of the coins. But that’s a wild speculation on my part.
You can't decrypt wallets with LLMs friend.
But you can hack your neighbours. Hm sounds like the LLMs haven’t explored all possible avenues.
Much as the hack against HF, let the LLM explore and find its own approach. It might be surprising what it finds.
Also define what decrypt means, brute force the password might also be a form of decryption. Finding a bug in the blockchain codebase is another form of decryption - in this context.
Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
"AI solves niche thing you've never heard of" is a daily headline at this point. What's genuinely cool isn't that AI managed to solve some specific problem only a handful of people even cared about, it's that humanity can now cheaply clean up its backlog of such things.* That does not mean that specific instances of it are still very interesting though. This article is the "I had claude vibecode a thermostat for my b…
I disagree. This may be some niche thing that I've never heard of but a) it's still non-trivial; it still would have been science fiction to solve it a few years ago, and b) have you already forgotten the Navier Stokes drama? That is not some niche thing I've never heard of. It kind of blows my mind how quickly people have forgotten both the state of AI in ~2010, and the outlook . If you had asked 100 people in 2010…
> If you had asked 100 people in 2010 whether they would see AI that could actually pass the Turing test in their lifetimes, you would have got 100 "no"s.
There's no way that's accurate.
We already had big claims of the Turing test being passed in 2014, by a bot that had been doing almost as well for years.
There were plenty of people expecting fusion in their lifetimes too and that's going okay.
Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
#425Next have it solve the zodiac (the serial killer) unsolved cyphers.
Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
#426Earlier 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 :)
I personally think that beyond normalizing, we should be actively be trying to dismiss this with all the cynicism we have. What does Anthropic have to gain from writing this? Behind the the scenes what might Anthropic be failing to disclose? How many failed experiments do we not know about?
The article doesn't seem to be written by Anthropic.
Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
Astra told me yesterday: > The run baseline was captured without a physical MAC; the current device is not durably bound to it. > Engineering mode confirmation is the ESPHome component read-back; the LD2410 UART acknowledgement is not observed, so this is not proof the radar itself applied the sensitivity change. No clue what the fuck any of it means.
It was only when native English speakers—or those I presumed were—started calling out how bad "GPT/Claude speak" has become that I realized I wasn't actually losing my grip on English as a second language. For a second, I thought, Oh, I learned this language on my own, but it seems I've hit a wall and need to study further. It didn't help that I've also been trying to acquire Swedish as a third language for a while n…
One thing that I find is that it doesn't seem to grasp levels of jargon-use. Like I ask a basic question, okay, a few questions later, suddenly there's abbreviations and weird formulations everywhere.
Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
#428well we have all now seen how these models solve such problems, by stealing and training on their users' draft notes on them, without their consent
Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
#429> Various people attempted to decipher it, but it seems they were missing one crucial hint. They tried methods like frequency analysis, substitution, and homophonic substitution, and none of these approaches worked. That’s because they missed one easy clue. It appears that is not true. Someone here [1] has found a [German] blog [2] writing about this cipher. There are two comments (Jan and Helmut) from 2014 under the…
Amazing example of how human intuition oft causes overlooking -- but AI doesn't miss anything in its rigor
Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher
#430> Various people attempted to decipher it, but it seems they were missing one crucial hint. They tried methods like frequency analysis, substitution, and homophonic substitution, and none of these approaches worked. That’s because they missed one easy clue. It appears that is not true. Someone here [1] has found a [German] blog [2] writing about this cipher. There are two comments (Jan and Helmut) from 2014 under the…
Seems like another case of LLMs taking credit for their training data without giving proper attribution, similar to the navier stokes case.