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. 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.