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

Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher

vals.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 561 posts

Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher

#501

Post by _fizz_buzz_ »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #484
_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are incredibly good at adapting. A few days ago AI solved Navier-Stokes and I was blown away. Now I'm already thinking: "Well, it was only a counterexample and it brute-forced its way to it." lol

> AI solved Navier-Stokes and I was blown away. That's not what happened, go read about it harder, please.

Sure. More precisely: they resolved the Navier-Stokes Millennium problem as posed by the Clay Institute. Not sure what else "solving Navier-Stokes" could reasonably mean. A general closed-form solution probably doesn't exist. And numerical solutions have existed for decades. But of course there are still open questions like unforced solutions etc.

Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher

#503

Post by Culonavirus »

qoez wrote: post #430
geraneum wrote: post #400

> 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.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher

#504

Post by xnickb »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #489
xnickb wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question for me is where it leaves innovation. Have we really peaked as a species that we so easily want to give up on the young and hand them over a tool that would substitute reasoning? Call me naive or old, but I don't see a need to think critically when you have a tool that can outmatch you in that. I tried drawing analogies with Chess, but it doesn't work. Shall I ask AI to do that for me?

> The question for me is where it leaves innovation. Have we really peaked as a species that we so easily want to give up on the young and hand them over a tool that would substitute reasoning? This is a crucial question but I'm afraid the ship has sailed. We should focus on how to prevent atrophy and cultivate our skills in spite of LLMs. For me and many others this means doing thins the old way with occasional assi…

This is all valid and I am with you here. However I can totally imagine kids in 10 years viewing writing code by hand same as we view making fire using flint and steel: yes can be useful, but why bother?

Except in this case I fear we're losing something very important as opposed to the above example.

Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher

#505

Post by fsckboy »

ueueh wrote: post #472
qoez wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like another case of LLMs taking credit for their training data without giving proper attribution, similar to the navier stokes case.

Yup. Listen there’s no doubt LLM’s are powerful. BUT THEY RELY ON HUMAN INPUTS. It’s getting tiresome seeing the same bull shit over and over. The labs have invested hundreds of billions and now need to show RSI. It’s not happening and won’t happen. Without continual new information supplied by humans the models would freeze.

>BUT THEY RELY ON HUMAN INPUTS

humans rely on human inputs. can then talk about the small number of humans who push the boundaries of knowledge and then talk about when LLMs solve difficult math problems...

Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher

#506

Post by tripledry »

emanuele232 wrote: post #375
u8080 wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Yeah it is just token predictor, it could not even beat top 0.01% domain experts so it does not count as intelligence"

that's the point, it is clear the the bar to determine if llms are useful / intelligent is being moved every time these systems improve, but it is starting to fell like people are in denial. we are seeing significant progress, at a rate we are absolutely not used to experience.

Im very impressed by the technology, I must admit that I didn't expect it to advance this fast.

But, at the same time, I'm really tired of there always being some shroud of dishonesty (ex. navier stokes and the two mathematicians working on it).

At this point my default is that I don't blindly trust the companies, I try to keep in mind they are trying to sell their product and win market share, there are so many perverse incentives at play I just can't take anything at face value.

Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher

#507

Post by y-curious »

b40d-48b2-979e wrote: post #470
topato wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“‘Drink… More…. Ovaltine’, It’s just a crummy ad!?!?” crumples up cypher and tosses away Holiday movie references aside, I guess we can chalk up a few more jobs on the ‘AI Took Our Jerb’ board: secret decoder rings, secret decoder ring-factory workers, and Enigma machine operators… and I guess cryptography-based puzzle enthusiasts, but that’s not a paid position. Another tangent, I’ve only recently realized the OTHER…

Art and music are two very obviously implicated hobbies Do you think anyone likes "AI" art and music? It's pretty widely reviled.

Yes, unfortunately. I have met people that love AI videos (my in-laws being the closest to my bubble) and defend them as enjoying creativity.

Many people with niche and nostalgic tastes loved that music AI that got sued to oblivion recently.

For the record, I revile both as well. But for every person eating salad, there’s someone subsisting on McDonalds.

Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher

#508

Post by jackeee1 »

bbor wrote: post #490
ueueh wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Listen there’s no doubt LLM’s are powerful. BUT THEY RELY ON HUMAN INPUTS. It’s getting tiresome seeing the same bull shit over and over. The labs have invested hundreds of billions and now need to show RSI. It’s not happening and won’t happen. Without continual new information supplied by humans the models would freeze.

Your opinion is contradicted by overwhelming scientific consensus. Hearing a plausible assertion should not be enough to believe it, friend.

Another founder of an AI slop firm talking slop.

Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher

#509

Post by b40d-48b2-979e »

y-curious wrote: post #507
b40d-48b2-979e wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art and music are two very obviously implicated hobbies Do you think anyone likes "AI" art and music? It's pretty widely reviled.

Yes, unfortunately. I have met people that love AI videos (my in-laws being the closest to my bubble) and defend them as enjoying creativity. Many people with niche and nostalgic tastes loved that music AI that got sued to oblivion recently. For the record, I revile both as well. But for every person eating salad, there’s someone subsisting on McDonalds.

Okay, AI videos, whatever, people are stupid. But that's not art, and it's not music. People in my circles (art-adjacent) immediately bounce off AI images and music.

Re: Fable 5.1 Solves the Cyphral Distich, a 370-year-old cipher

#510

Post by jackeee1 »

fsckboy wrote: post #505
ueueh wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Listen there’s no doubt LLM’s are powerful. BUT THEY RELY ON HUMAN INPUTS. It’s getting tiresome seeing the same bull shit over and over. The labs have invested hundreds of billions and now need to show RSI. It’s not happening and won’t happen. Without continual new information supplied by humans the models would freeze.

> BUT THEY RELY ON HUMAN INPUTS humans rely on human inputs. can then talk about the small number of humans who push the boundaries of knowledge and then talk about when LLMs solve difficult math problems...

[flagged]
Post reply on HN