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. serbuvlad · 1790091726 · focus · HN ↗

      Even if this is true, we must avoid falling into the trap of Kasparov of betting on Centaur Chess.

      Just like with Kasparov's Centaur Chess, the idea of a 'human in the loop' is just a necessity due to current limitations.

      There will hopefully (?) come a time one day when human beings provide only ultimate value judgments, and everything else is done by machines. Or it may not.

      But I don't think betting your ego on the idea that you will be useful in the loop for very long is very wise.

      1. skybrian · 1790093039 · focus · HN ↗

         This is a bit too future-oriented. Let's not mix up current capabilities and speculation about future capabilities. For the time being, collaboration works well. What the future brings is uncertain.

         1. ctoth · 1790093268 · focus · HN ↗

            > This is a bit too future-oriented.

            This? Still? After everything?

            Buddy, you're living in the future. In a science fiction novel. Please get used to it.

            1. skybrian · 1790093532 · focus · HN ↗

               It's good to think about where you're going, but you also have to keep track of where you are.

               (Also, getting people to think about the future rather than the present is a classic con. Looking at an empty field: "can't you just see the potential here?")

            2. pyrale · 1790095168 · focus · HN ↗

               > Please get used to it.

               The novel title: "Don’t Build The Torment Nexus".

            3. sifar · 1790100793 · focus · HN ↗

               If there is one thing I have realized after reading quite a few science fiction books, it is that I don't want to live in any one them - not one.

               Unfortunately, there are enough people in the world who think that is the future everyone should live in and are actively working to bring it about.

               And so, one must adapt. .

               1. myrmidon · 1790164875 · focus · HN ↗

                  > If there is one thing I have realized after reading quite a few science fiction books, it is that I don't want to live in any one them - not one.

                  I find this suprising kinda. If I got a choice right now, there's a bunch of dystopian Scifi that I would instantly go for (out of sheer curiosity), e.g. the Murderbot universe.

                  Are there fantasy worlds that you would want to live in? I feel this is a bit of a suspect benchmark in the first place because books typically want some kind of tension/conflict which you won't get if everyone is just gratefully living their best life.

                  1. anthonyrstevens · 1790180578 · focus · HN ↗

                     Alan Dean Foster created some very appealing universes.
         2. serbuvlad · 1790095656 · focus · HN ↗

            I'm still in my 20's so I feel some necessity to be future-oriented.

            I do expect centaurs to outperform other systems for many types of tasks for years to come (and am kind of betting on this to keep getting paid).

            But what I'm talking about is ego. It your ego is tied up with (a) your intelligence or (b) your ability to perform task X; you will probably be humbled this century.

            1. goatlover · 1790104419 · focus · HN ↗

               Why do you want machines to replace human intelligence and ability? I find that dystopian. AI could have meant Augmented Intelligence (which was proposed a long time ago), not let's see when we can replace all human activity.

               One is humanist, the other is anti-human, (in the end goal at least).

               1. krisoft · 1790109677 · focus · HN ↗

                  > Why do you want machines to replace human intelligence and ability?

                  Where do you see the commenter say this?

                  1. goatlover · 1790132386 · focus · HN ↗

                     > There will hopefully (?) come a time one day when human beings provide only ultimate value judgments, and everything else is done by machines.

                     In their previous grandparent post. They do reserve a place for human value judgement, but I doubt even that remains if everything else has been automated. The machines will decide what we value. We already see that to some degree with algorithmic engagement and targeted advertisements.

                     1. serbuvlad · 1790148801 · focus · HN ↗

                        The (?) is meant to express doubt that it is a good thing on net. But regardless of whether it is, it is what is likely to happen, and there will certainly be some good things that come out of it.
               2. dyauspitr · 1790143216 · focus · HN ↗

                  Seems like machines being able to replace human intelligence and ability will be a dystopia in the short term, but it’s the only route to a long-term utopia.
      2. banannaise · 1790093549 · focus · HN ↗

         While this is a reasonable analogy, engines became better than humans in the late 1990s, and engines became better than centaurs in the early 2020s. Could AI-powered mathematics improve faster than the ~25 years it took for chess? The AI labs are certainly hoping it does, but that's far from a guarantee.

         1. myrmidon · 1790164146 · focus · HN ↗

            Might be a bad analogy, because early chess computers were purely algorithmic and worked despite their poor board state evaluation heuristics that humans used to be able to augment.

            Compare with go (boardgame): Centaur go was basically not ever a thing.

            Other applications behaved kinda similarly (AI Starcraft/Dota/...), where we had decent "human-like" heuristics from the get go and the Centaur concept could never really shine, much less for a decade or more.

            I'd also like to stress that past progress in this mainly happened for the love of the game, while the (economical) incentives to replace human office workers are... high.

      3. zahlman · 1790133536 · focus · HN ↗

         > hopefully (?)

         What you describe doesn't actually sound to me like the worthy goal it might initially come across as. Struggle helps us feel alive.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.