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. speed_spread · 1790089899 · focus · HN ↗

         A cyclist pedaling up a mountain isn't a "collaboration" between a bicycle and a human. This is the same. You don't see feral bicycles roaming the land. All models are ultimately built and run by humans, with human-provided instructions. And as with any program, it's garbage in, garbage out.

         1. TeMPOraL · 1790090510 · focus · HN ↗

            More apt analogy here: a cyclist pushing a bicycle down the mountain and seeing it somehow get down the whole track without falling down, is not a collaboration between a bicycle and a human. The human was not involved beyond giving the initial push.

            1. speed_spread · 1790108944 · focus · HN ↗

               Cyclist still chooses the time, mountain and direction the bicycle gets pushed in. Bicycles have no agency and only go down because gravity. Bicycle will not "discover" tree or wall, any outcome solely the result of cyclist's decisions even if thrown bicycles don't have generally deterministic paths. Don't anthropomorphize the bicycle.

               1. NetMageSCW · 1790177617 · focus · HN ↗

                  If I told you to pick an encrypted message from the web site and decrypt it, and you went and did it with no further input from me, would you okay with me calling it a collaboration to decrypt the message?

                  1. speed_spread · 1790263472 · focus · HN ↗

                     Probably not, but then again I have an ego, and I have other things going on in my life than decrypting random stuff for someone else's enjoyment. Both of which aren't true for an agent/LLM.

                     It's a machine - when we attribute it human concepts such as victory, mistakes, ethics, we also shift responsibility away from the operator and soon enough bad people will use it as an umbrella. The agent ate my homework! The agent bombed a school! Bad agent, no!

         2. 1attice · 1790092538 · focus · HN ↗

            The bicycle -- a simple method of transport powered entirely by humans -- used analogically to prove a point about [clears throat] automation.

            I think this sounds somewhat less silly in English because "automotive" and "automative" don't have the same hyper-visible affinity, but all the same; you may want to consider the car as a more viable analogand.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.