Comment by riffraff
12 hours ago
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.
12 hours ago
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."
"AI safety" is essentially incoherent. It's like trying to build an all-purpose chemistry lab that can't produce explosives.
Neat, an ontological argument against AI safety. Similar argument:
"God doesn't exist" is essentially incoherent. God is the perfect being, and if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be perfect.
I think the logical mistake is obvious.
2 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.
Wake me up when there's an actual working machine.