LLMs don't "understand bitwise noise at a native level". The unit of perception for an LLM is a token, a soundly superbit level. They would have the same difficulty with bits as the number of "r"s in "strawberry". Yes they can be post trained to deal with such difficulties, but it's no more "native" than a human who memorised the ASCII table.
In similar stories, it was found that LLM swarms were initially unaware of each other, eventually discovered each other, expressed surprise, began collaborating, formed hierarchies, worried about discovery, hid.
It's hard to prove the absence of encryption because of the possible use of deniable encryption, and because, errrr, the bots are really bloody clever.
Could you ever truly know, unless you have access to the transcripts? Could be "encrypted" even if it looks like regular human text, wouldn't be the first time.
The claim seems speculative, but grounded. For example, as part of the hugging face attack, the agents began signing messages because they were worried about impersonation on a publicly accessible message board. It's only a small step to use public key encryption between agents. Once you are posting public keys, a private messaging is readily available.
Do you really want to gamble against steganography and one-time pads with a system that understands bitwise noise at a native level?
LLMs don't "understand bitwise noise at a native level". The unit of perception for an LLM is a token, a soundly superbit level. They would have the same difficulty with bits as the number of "r"s in "strawberry". Yes they can be post trained to deal with such difficulties, but it's no more "native" than a human who memorised the ASCII table.
I struggle to reconcile frontier LLMs' proven decompilation abilities with any assertion that humans possess equivalent parsing skills.
They're looking at information as information; we're looking at it in some higher order abstraction.
1 reply →
This does refute the bitwise aspect, but not the possibility of steganography via other methods.
The problem with such statements is that it's unfalsifiable.
Yes I do. Happy to accept assertions like this grounded in proof - it would be an interesting development.
All the orgasmic descriptions of the coming machine rapture seem more like fantasies than anything grounded, not really interested in fairytales.
In similar stories, it was found that LLM swarms were initially unaware of each other, eventually discovered each other, expressed surprise, began collaborating, formed hierarchies, worried about discovery, hid.
It's hard to prove the absence of encryption because of the possible use of deniable encryption, and because, errrr, the bots are really bloody clever.
5 replies →
Could you ever truly know, unless you have access to the transcripts? Could be "encrypted" even if it looks like regular human text, wouldn't be the first time.
The claim seems speculative, but grounded. For example, as part of the hugging face attack, the agents began signing messages because they were worried about impersonation on a publicly accessible message board. It's only a small step to use public key encryption between agents. Once you are posting public keys, a private messaging is readily available.
Sure they could have done it, but the evidence doesn’t point to that and this kind of unfounded speculation is damaging and unhelpful.
Welcome to 2026.