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…
Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude
161–170 of 199 posts
Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude
#162I 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,…
I feel using AI (effectively) is not too far from the skillset of programming. It is still a machine following instructions (just, maddenigly non-deterministic, but still close enough), so the same insticts of breaking down work into clearly defined sequences that make a good programmer also make a good AI jockey.
Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. It sounds more like management (Minus the 'people skills' since you don't technically need Claude to like you... yet).
I'm curious if there has been any study on the output quality of LLMs after actively antagonizing them. It's easy to forget that at the most basic level these are just auto-complete machines, and humans tend to not respond so well after antagonized. It stands to reason that the same should follow for an auto-complete system trained on human interaction.
Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
I think knowing what you want (and being able to articulate it with adequate specificity, and detecting when processes drift away from it) is a real skill/field of expertise. I just don't think it's specific to interfacing with "AI."
Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude
#165I 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…
Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude
#166'Researchers at Anthropic then spent several hundred hours learning enough cryptography research to validate the model’s claim, and to prepare the research paper itself, which we are releasing along with this blog post' So model outputs something, that can be completely bogus, and a lot of people spend a lot of hours checking if it's worth anything(not for the sake of science, but for the sake of publishing and marke…
Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude
#167When high quality effort is applied to a tool, such as AES or the linux kernel, we intuit that it "hardens" the tool. That is, it makes the tool more correct, more resilient, less assailable, etc. Similarly, when effort is applied to an open problem, such as the Riemann hypothesis or P v NP, without progress, it "hardens" the problem: it makes the problem feel more daunting to whoever takes a stab at it next. Andrew…
AI is nowhere near the intelligence of a very educated person that has innate talent for problem solving. It does solve the problem of applying human intelligence on problems that truly need it. AI is also a great tool to see if there's something simple that we've missed or just haven't even attempted due to wrong assumptions.
The main result in this paper is improving the Derbez, Foque, Jean attack from EUROCRYPT 2013, which is an improvement of our attack from CRYPTO 2010, which is an improvement of the Demirci-Selcuk attack, which is the improvement of the Gilbert-Minier collision attack against 7-round attack [...]
To save everybody's time, the [DFJ13] attack is on 7-round AES. The new result is also on 7-round AES, "eroding" the security margin of 7-round AES by about 8 bits of security [...] While this is the first improvement in attacking 7-round AES in the last decade, if you were not worried by the series of papers that reduced the security of 5-round AES from 2^32 to 2^16, or the somewhat improved attacks on 6-round AES, then you should not really worry now to start a procedure for changing 10-round AES (for 128-bit key) for something else, when there are no attacks on 8-round AES-128.
So someone threw a clanker at a series of previous results and told it to find improvements. Since it's ingested every piece of crypto research ever and can draw on all of them instantly, it managed to tweak the previous work a bit to improve the attack slightly... on a version of AES deliberately weakened to make attacks easier, a standard procedure for any iterated crypto algorithm where you see how many rounds you can get into it before your attack stalls. So it's a bit like saying you knocked out Mike Tyson's brother's cousin's uncle's sister's nephew in four rounds instead of five.Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never once had to do that, fwiw.
You'll get better code if you do
Re: Discovering Cryptographic Weaknesses with Claude
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a Chinese model can do it for $1-10K, then why hasn't one? Why have all the mathematical (and now cryptographic) breakthroughs come from OpenAI and Anthropic? Is it possibly because the Chinese models are so benchmaxxed they can't make novel discoveries?
“I haven’t seen X, therefore it doesn’t exist.” Absence of evidence is not an evidence for absence of something.