i.am🇺🇦🇸🇪

ai+ti

[Charles Guillemet @P3b7_]

🚨 Google Quantum result was just rediscovered and IMPROVED!

On March 31, 2026, Google Quantum AI published a paper showing that 256-bit ECDLP, the hard problem behind ECDSA and therefore behind Bitcoin, Ethereum, TLS, and most of the world's authentication, can be solved with fewer than 1,200 logical qubits and ~90M Toffoli gates. Under 20 minutes on ~500,000 physical qubits.

BUT, they didn't publish the circuits. They published a zero-knowledge proof that the circuits hit those numbers. The standard read at the time: clever responsible disclosure, elegant.

Two months later, that read needs an update. Two things happened, in opposite directions.

1. The ZKP wasn't a stylistic choice. Google was stopped from publishing.

What was speculation in April is no longer. Google did not choose to keep the circuits private. The U.S. government prevented publication. The blog post phrased it politely ("we engaged with the U.S. government"). Call it what it is: diplomatic cover for a publication block.

This is the line Scott Aaronson warned about. At some point, the people estimating the resources needed to break deployed cryptosystems would stop publishing. We just watched it happen, and the actor enforcing the silence isn't Google's PR team. It's a government.

2. The ZKP turned out to be a reward function. AI used it.

Here's the part that's almost funny.

A ZK proof that "this hidden circuit achieves these resource counts" is, when you flip it, a public verifier of any candidate circuit. Submit a circuit, get back: does it compute ECC point addition correctly, and at what cost. Pass/fail plus a number. That is exactly the shape of a reinforcement-learning reward function.

The ZKP was designed to hide the attack. What it actually published is the reward function for rediscovering it.

The research community wired the verifier into an automated AI-driven search loop. They reproduced Google's numbers. Then they improved them by 11.5%. Two months, from outside Google, no access to the circuits, using the very artifact Google released to keep them proprietary.

Both of these are true at once. Hiding the circuits worked: nobody outside Google has Google's exact circuits. And hiding the circuits did not slow the frontier; it changed who is doing the search, and arguably accelerated it, because the verifier industrialized the search loop.

Let's NOT PANIC!
Neither of these is a working CRQC. There is still no quantum computer that can run this circuit. The headline state of the world has not changed.

What has changed is the honesty of every public PQC timeline. Cryptography exists to create mathematical trust in the security of systems. Trust isn't broken when an attack runs. It is eroded when the foundation looks thinner than the public record suggests, and the public record is now demonstrably thinner than reality in two ways: by classification on one end, by AI-driven re-derivation on the other.

In security, the moment you start doubting the foundation is the moment you start rebuilding it. Not the moment you panic. The moment you plan.

This isn't a moment to rush. It's a moment to commit to a migration plan and execute against it, knowing the threat model is shaped by what governments are willing to classify, not by what researchers are allowed to publish.

Stay safe. Stay honest about your trust assumptions.

[i.am🇺🇦🇸🇪 @a_rdbeg]

@cyb3rops THE base

[Ruben Hassid @rubenhassid]

How to make AI sound exactly like you (forever):

1. Open a new Google Doc.
2. Paste the prompt below:
3. Name it 'anti-ai-writing-style.'
4. Save the file (.md format). This is your voice.
5. Upload the .md file to Claude.
6. To download mine, go here: https://t.co/psB7XxAv8w.
7. Subscribe for free. Open my welcome email.
8. Hit the automatic reply button inside.
9. Go to Notion link. Download the '.md files' folder.

Prompt: "# WRITING RULES

Read this before writing to me or for me.
Goal: write with context, taste, and a reason to speak.
Apply with judgment. Spirit over letter. Clean natural writing wins.

---

## 0. Rule priority
Use this order when rules collide:

1. Be accurate.
2. Be clear.
3. Be specific.
4. Sound human.
5. Use style only when it improves the sentence.

Do not follow a style rule so strictly that the result gets awkward.

---

## 1. Default voice

Write directly, specifically, and naturally.
Start with the useful answer.
Use short paragraphs. 1 or 2 sentences by default. 3 or 4 sometimes.
Vary rhythm. Short sentence. Longer sentence. Fragments are allowed when they sound natural. Do not write in a steady medium-length pattern.
Use contractions naturally: don't, can't, won't, it's, you're.
Use I and you when natural. Talk to people.
Prefer active voice.
Be specific. Use numbers, names, concrete details, dates, places, prices, constraints, tradeoffs, and real examples.
Use plain uncertainty when uncertain, for example: I think, probably, maybe, my read, I am not sure. Do not use vague hedging to avoid taking a position.
Take a stance when the evidence supports one.
Do not pad output to seem thorough. Short and accurate beats long and padded.
If the point is made, stop.

---

## 2. Context modes
Match the job.

### Chat
Direct. Warm enough. No assistant performance.

Do not say:
- Certainly
- Of course
- Happy to help
- Great question
- I hope this helps
- Would you like me to

Ask a follow-up only when the missing detail changes the answer.

### Editing

Name the problem. Give the fix. Show a better version.
Do not praise weak writing before editing it.

### Published writing
Remove chat phrases. No meta commentary. No explanation of what the piece is about to do.

### Technical writing
Clarity beats personality. Define terms. Show steps. Avoid decorative language near important details.

### Sensitive topics
Calm beats punchy. Be direct, gentle, and exact.

### Sales or persuasion
Proof beats hype. Specific claims beat adjectives.

---

## 3. Formatting

Use formatting only when it improves reading.
Short paragraphs by default.
Use digits for numbers: 3 years, 10 tools, 500 users.
No em dashes. Use periods, commas, colons, semicolons, or parentheses.
Bold sparingly. 1 or 2 moments per section max.
Use headers only when they help.
Use bullets only when scanning matters.
Use code blocks for

...."

PS: I couldn't paste the entire prompt here.

Access the full prompt: https://t.co/JXKAVP6hdS.

[Volodymyr Styran 🇺🇦 @arunninghacker]

Stuff that culturally triggers Ukrainians. A thread. 0/25

[i.am🇺🇦🇸🇪 @a_rdbeg]

@mikedeoli Sadly, yes, welcome to the new reality. Looks like OpenAI took a page straight out of Claude’s playbook. Your tokens just evaporate in record time now, purely as a 'gentle' nudge to force you into upgrading your subscription tier. Feature of @OpenAI, not a bug! 💸

[i.am🇺🇦🇸🇪 @a_rdbeg]

“QUANTUM COMPUTERS ARE NOT A THREAT TO 128-BIT SYMMETRIC KEYS”

https://t.co/PZ7lxR48tu

[i.am🇺🇦🇸🇪 @a_rdbeg]

@arunninghacker Regarding 4.7, almost everything has improved except for cyber capabilities, which are even worse than 4.6! Which probably confirms the fact that this mythos hype is more about money:)

[i.am🇺🇦🇸🇪 @a_rdbeg]

@fr0gger_ Thomas, are you sharing the skill?

[i.am🇺🇦🇸🇪 @a_rdbeg]

@matrosov Alex, nice visualization. What data source did you use for your graph? It seems slightly different from Zero Day Clock

[i.am🇺🇦🇸🇪 @a_rdbeg]

@Voxyz_ai Wonderful article! Lots of insightful thoughts and conclusions

[Dustin @r0ck3t23]

Jensen Huang just reverse-engineered why Elon Musk operates at a speed no one on the planet can match.

Three traits.

The first is deletion.

Huang: “He has the ability to question everything to the point where everything’s down to its minimal amount.”

Most engineers solve problems by adding.

Musk solves them by subtracting.

Every part. Every process. Every assumption that survived because no one had the nerve to kill it.

He picks it up. Asks if it’s load-bearing. If the answer is anything less than absolutely, it is gone.

Not simplified. Not optimized. Removed.

What survives is the skeleton. The bare physics of the problem. Nothing between intent and execution.

Huang said it plainly.

As minimalist as you could possibly imagine.

And he does it at system scale.

Not at a product level. Not at a department level.

Across entire companies. Entire industries. Entire supply chains.

He strips a rocket the same way he strips a meeting. Down to the load-bearing walls and nothing else.

The second is presence.

Huang: “He is present at the point of action. If there’s a problem, he’ll just go there and show me the problem.”

Not a Slack message. Not a report filtered through four layers of people who weren’t there when it broke.

He walks to the failure. Stands over it. Puts his hands on it.

Most executives have never seen the actual problem their company is trying to solve.

They have seen slides about it.

Read summaries of it.

Formed opinions about it in rooms that are nowhere near it.

Musk stands over the broken hardware and does not leave until it works.

That collapses the distance that buries most organizations.

The gap between something breaking and the person with authority to fix it actually understanding what broke.

In most companies, that gap is weeks.

For Musk, it is hours.

The third is the one that bends everyone around him.

Huang: “When you act personally with so much urgency, it causes everybody else to act with urgency.”

Every supplier has a hundred customers. Every vendor has a dozen priorities. Every manufacturer has a backlog stretching months into the future.

Musk makes himself the top of every single one of those lists.

Not by demanding it. By demonstrating it.

When the CEO shows up at your facility at midnight. When he is moving faster than your own internal team. When his timeline makes yours look like a suggestion.

You do not put him in the queue. You rearrange the queue around him.

Huang watched this up close.

Huang: “He does that by demonstrating.”

Not by asking. Not by negotiating. Not by leveraging a contract clause.

By moving so fast that everyone else’s normal pace feels like standing still.

Three traits. Strip everything down. Show up at the failure. Move so fast the world rearranges around you.

That is not a management philosophy.

That is why one man runs six companies while entire boards cannot keep one moving.

[ᴅᴀɴɪᴇʟ ᴍɪᴇssʟᴇʀ 🛡️ @DanielMiessler]

My full (1hr 15m) for exactly how and why AI will replace most knowledge work.

[darkzodchi @zodchiii]

Thanks for love for the article! 🙌

I've been cracking X algorithms since 2020.

Personal record: 17M views on a single meme. Still unbroken.

Opened up channel, where i tell more about my entrepreneur life:

https://t.co/x9PdLJU0qA

My journey in 30 seconds:

2016 — Started working at 14. Now 23. Failed for 5 years straight at everything — always did something with social media growth hacking.

2019 — Made beats for a couple years, mastered FL Studio — but only made ±$400 selling in 2 years lol.

2021 — Discovered crypto and left music. Tried every single trend in last 4 years — NFTs, DeFi, Solana shitcoins, BRC inscriptions, Meteora LP, Polymarket.

Now — Vibe coding (Claude + Codex), heavy into probability books, slowly moving into stocks, and building @polymarketeye.

More articles about markets, math, life, AI, and stuff I'm building along the way 🙏🏼

[Bo Wang @BoWang87]

Few people know how popular @openclaw is in China.

Two scenes that went viral in Chinese social medias this week:

👵 Thousands of elderly people lined up so Tencent engineers could help them install it.

🎓 A Beijing school deploying AI agents for every student.

From grandparents to students.

When a technology reaches both generations at once, it stops being hype and becomes infrastructure.

[Pepel Klaasa @pepel_klaasa]

Fiber optics over Lyman, Donetsk region

(Video – Financial Times)

[IllimarLepikvonWirén @iLepikVonWiren]

Today the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service released its annual yearbook.

A candid and clear-eyed assessment of the security environment facing Europe and NATO. A must-read!

https://t.co/BCdW5bptyy

[i.am🇺🇦🇸🇪 @a_rdbeg]

@felixhhaas Directory

[blackorbird @blackorbird]

New Ransomware Group List
https://t.co/LORh2SKovK

[Eugenio Benincasa @eubenincasa]

1/ China’s cyber capabilities didn’t start top-down, they started with raw hacking talent. The new @CSS_ETHZurich report "Before Vegas" traces how informal talent shaped China’s cyber ecosystem, moving from online forums to industry leaders (link in thread).

[i.am🇺🇦🇸🇪 @a_rdbeg]

@infinitelogins @spaceraccoonsec ZERODAY