Debojit Das

Yes

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

welp, i guess a third one is here

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

a second cheating scandal by this nvidia gooner

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

omw to apply for the new nvidia vacancy

i don’t even remember my own passwords so i’m not gonna leak trade secrets please hire me @nvidia

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

@_mishkyn my recruiter from amazon got laid off soon after I joined

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

A big part of company security is just employees promising not to click on sus links I guess

[Binance @binance]

https://t.co/sU9dUqLQDH

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

@_mishkyn I ran out of my weekly limit and I’m out of resets 😭 Will see what this Diwali thing is all about i guess

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

@kreepkroop green apple and alcohol no longer go together

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

@_mishkyn call it out. tell them they are wasting your time. say thanks for pretending to give your time. leave.

give it as a feedback in a reply mail to your interview invite if you want but make sure glassdoor knows about it

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

The theoretical CS researcher in me knows that (if the math is correct), this is absolutely revolutionary

The software engineer in me knows that practically this means nothing for the foreseeable future

But some of the coolest science breakthroughs have come from useless math

[Rishabh Karnawat @rishabhkio]

Many of you don't understand how serious this is, so let me break it down.

In computer science there is a famous kind of puzzle called 3-SAT. You are given a long list of yes-or-no switches and a set of rules about how they must be arranged, and you have to find a combination that satisfies every rule. The obvious way to solve it is to try every combination, but each new switch doubles the number of possibilities, so a puzzle with a few hundred switches would take longer than the age of the universe to brute force.

For decades, the smartest people in the field found clever tricks that made this a little faster, but every trick still hit the same wall: the time required kept exploding as the puzzle grew.
About 25 years ago, two computer scientists, Russell Impagliazzo and Ramamohan Paturi, working with Francis Zane, turned that wall into a formal idea.

They proposed the Exponential Time Hypothesis, which says this explosion is not a failure of human cleverness but a law of nature. No algorithm, however brilliant, will ever solve 3-SAT without the time blowing up exponentially. Nobody could prove it, but almost everyone believed it, and it became one of the foundations of modern computer science.

Researchers used it as a measuring stick. If you could show that solving some other problem quickly would also crack 3-SAT quickly, you had shown that problem was hopelessly hard too. Hundreds of papers, across scheduling, graphs, logic and much more, rest on this one assumption.

Now an internal AI model at OpenAI claims to have broken it. It says it found an algorithm that solves these puzzles meaningfully faster than the hypothesis allows, and it has checked the proof in a computer verification system called Lean.

And here is the remarkable part: the very people who proposed the hypothesis, Impagliazzo and Paturi, along with MIT's Ryan Williams, are now leading the public review of whether a machine has disproved their own idea.
So what happens next? If the disproof holds, a large part of theoretical computer science has to be revisited.

Every result that said "this problem cannot be solved faster, assuming ETH" loses its foundation, and researchers will have to work out which of those walls were real and which were simply where we stopped looking. It does not mean everything becomes easy. The new algorithm is still slow in absolute terms and this is not the famous P versus NP problem being solved.

But it means our map of what is possible was wrong in a place we were very confident about, and it was an AI that redrew it. If the disproof fails, the hypothesis survives and the field breathes out, but we will still have watched an AI produce serious, checkable work on one of the deepest questions in the discipline, closely enough that the founders of the idea had to take it seriously. Either way, something has shifted.

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

Road Rash is back, and you can play it right in your browser, even with friends now 🥹

Naturally, the first thing I tried was xyzzy and thwack!
Neither worked, so I had to go back to kicking people off their bikes

Still finished first, as you can clearly see

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

One agent manipulated the processor’s cache while the other worked out the secret by measuring tiny differences in read times.

Researchers guided most attempts, so they weren’t secretly plotting to chat.

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

OpenAI took away the obvious ways for two AI agents to communicate, then asked them to exchange a secret.

This was their solution:

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

This came from an OpenAI security test. The agents were in separate virtual machines on the same physical computer, and the usual ways to communicate had been removed.

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

@kreepkroop ;-;

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

eMudhra revoked all eight intermediates. Google, Apple, Microsoft and Mozilla blocked the affected certificates.

No malicious use has been confirmed.

Even with everything blocked, the fact that one of the keys was 4 is still wild. (6/6)

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

I thought the number 4 was a typo when I first saw this.

Just 4!!!!

But this post leaves out some important context. (1/6)

[International Cyber Digest @IntCyberDigest]

‼️ BREAKING: The private keys of 8 certificates from Indian certificate authority eMudhra were compromised, Mozilla says. Firefox blocked them within 3 hours.

Each key should be a 116-digit number, but one was just 4.

Anyone can guess them and forge HTTPS certs for any website.

[Debojit Das @Debrooooo]

eMudhra says a wrap/unwrap step created a weak set alongside the intended strong keys. Similar labels caused the wrong set to be used.

The issue went unnoticed for around 18 months and through two independent audit cycles. (5/6)