Thread

1. jtrn · 1790087529 · focus · HN ↗

   The correct title: Researcher brakes one specific stubborn historic enigma message with good help from Astra.

   Stubborn for a long time because the message used a completely different key from the rest of that day's traffic. Everyone assumed it shared the daily key. The original transcription had errors. The left rotor turned over at letter 72, which is rare and breaks standard crib attacks.

   What is cool, if true, is that it was a 2 day collab between the Leffer and Astra. To me this shows the importance of human in the loop, was still all also showing how immensely power of llm tools. But I think it’s getting a bit silly how much anrticles ignores the driving force (the person) in breakthroughs like this.

   1. exfalso · 1790087762 · focus · HN ↗

      Come on, the trivializations start to sound quite unfounded now. Yes, a human was needed, but no, it wasn't a "collaboration"

      1. jtmarl1n · 1790088044 · focus · HN ↗

         So the LLM would have done all of this on its own? Why is it ok to acknowledge the human was needed but it’s not a collaboration? Is there a defined percentage of ownership required to make the word collaboration valid?

         1. true_religion · 1790088979 · focus · HN ↗

            We focus on the tool because that is what makes it novel.

            Hearing a guy built his home in a week with the power of nails and a hammer would have been novel in era of mortise and tenon.

            I actually found an article about raving about how fast nail production was thanks to machining advances in 1790 and that it would bring great value: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;digital.libraries.psu.edu&#x2F;digital&#x2F;collection&#x2F;pabooknews&#x2F;id&#x2F;1054&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;digital.libraries.psu.edu&#x2F;digital&#x2F;collection&#x2F;pabookn...

            It’s seems to me humans haven’t changed, just which machines we praise.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.