This has been used for centuries. It is not a new invention.
Hundreds of years ago, it was not unusual to publish an encrypted solution of some mathematical problem, in order to establish priority without disclosing the algorithm that was used.
Of course, at that time very simple encryption methods were used, for instance an anagram of the solution was published (i.e. encryption by letter transposition).
But the algorithm still isn't practical on existing quantum computers, or ones that are going to be around any time soon, so there's no reason not to publish in full.
If only AI safety research had a mechanism this clear. "We have proof that building the machine will kill everybody, so get to work making a provably safe version."
This has been used for centuries. It is not a new invention.
Hundreds of years ago, it was not unusual to publish an encrypted solution of some mathematical problem, in order to establish priority without disclosing the algorithm that was used.
Of course, at that time very simple encryption methods were used, for instance an anagram of the solution was published (i.e. encryption by letter transposition).
Is it? Nobody else can really build on their work.
AIU the intent of this publication is not to further research but to make it clear to anyone that we need to move to post quantum cryptography ASAP.
But the algorithm still isn't practical on existing quantum computers, or ones that are going to be around any time soon, so there's no reason not to publish in full.
If only AI safety research had a mechanism this clear. "We have proof that building the machine will kill everybody, so get to work making a provably safe version."
4 replies →
Could be one of the intents, but the main intent is reputation building.
That may be the intent, but it is very anti-science.