ecneladis

[ecneladis @ecneladis]

Imagine Brain2Qwerty + J-space.

Thought crimes police departments incoming. Also ultimate lie detection device, unless you ablate your brain.

[aizk ✡️ @Aizkmusic]

I asked Qwen "What happened in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989?"
It refuses to answer citing "illegal information", but the J-space probe reveals that the model has "thought" of the word "protestors" in its response.
Incredible.

[ecneladis @ecneladis]

Remember when we used to select lines to update in Cursor?

[Rob Hallam @robj3d3]

Remember when we used to tag file names in prompts? lol

[Craig Weiss @craigweiss]

most people are going to be completely thrown off guard in the next 1-2 years when we are suddenly capable of talking to animals

[orph @orphcorp]

you have one week to exploit the ultra mega dangerous superintelligence to solve all your health problems, win friends, influence people, make money, and find God for a mere 20 bucks. make no mistakes.

[ecneladis @ecneladis]

First major gov bans on models, Fable obliterated, Meta shifting to renting GPUs and Zuck is telling agents development is not going well, Alex Karp openly praises open source models vs Claude and GPT that are possibly stealing your company alpha, IPOs postponed till 2027.

Looks like Fable was top model available to the general public for some time and it was also peak usage by corporations.

[ecneladis @ecneladis]

@ni5arga Classic .env

[Beff (e/acc) @beffjezos]

Claude Sophon 5

[Justin Drake @drakefjustin]

Today a crazy quantum story just got wilder.

On March 31, the Google Quantum AI team published a landmark result on Shor's algorithm for elliptic curve cryptography. Technically, the paper was a bombshell: a dramatic 10x improvement over the state-of-the-art. As a stunt and wakeup call to the blockchain space, those optimisations were illustrated on secp256k1, the elliptic curve underlying Bitcoin and Ethereum signatures.

But perhaps the most striking part of the paper was sociological, not technical. Instead of following standard academic process, the optimisations were kept secret, hidden behind a zero-knowledge (ZK) proof. Google's accompanying blog post mentions they "engaged with the U.S. government". The ZK proof demonstrates the existence of algorithmic improvements without leaking details. Academic censorship with ZK, a historic first!

As a co-author of the Google paper I witnessed some of the context surrounding this censorship. To be honest, multiple aspects of that context don't sit well with me. As much as I believe the general public ought to know more, I am limited in my ability to whistleblow. Though let me be clear about one thing: the Google team's professionalism has been absolutely exemplary, and they deserve nothing but praise.

Censorship has a way of backfiring. The Streisand effect, where an attempt to bury something only draws more attention to it, is exactly what's unfolding today. First, Google's key optimisation has been rediscovered by the French. And in a thrilling turn of events, a collaborative Shor-at-home challenge just launched. The initiative, available at ecdsa[.]fail, breached a new Shor world record in a matter of hours.

Let's start with the rediscovery. Just two months after Google's paper, French quantum expert André Schrottenloher cracks the main secret optimisation. His paper, titled "Optimized Point Addition Circuits for Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithms", landed on the arXiv today. Big congrats to André, who beat several other nerdsnipped experts to it. In a blog post also published today, Craig Gidney, the world expert on Shor optimisations, revealed that he'd been sitting on this very optimisation for a whole year under censorship pressure.

Interestingly, André missed a handful of minor optimisations, both from Google's original publication and from improvements found since. It's plausible there's still plenty of juice left to squeeze out of Shor, and this is exactly what the ecdsa[.]fail challenge is about. The verifier program developed for the ZK proof does double duty, automatically filtering for valid submissions. Dozens of compounding small and micro improvements are rolling in. As of the time of writing there's an 8.4% improvement to Google's circuit, as measured by the product of logical qubit count and Toffoli gate count. Nice!

The nerdsnipping ran deeper than anyone expected. Over the last few weeks it became clear it extended well beyond André and other quantum experts. Behind the scenes, a small army of amateurs quietly got to work. Inspired by Karpathy-style autoresearch, they turned AI on Shor. Ironically, the verifier program for the ZK proof makes an ideal reward function for AIs. The barrier to entry for this modern style of research is refreshingly low, with several non-experts, even a teenager, finding nice optimisations. Get in touch if you'd like to join a Telegram group with fellow autoresearchers :)

Part 2: neutral atoms and qday

The story doesn't end with Google. On the same day Google went public, a stealthy startup called Oratomic published its own Shor paper in a coordinated release. It made a splash, ultimately becoming the most upvoted paper on scirate[.]com, a website ranking arXiv papers.

Oratomic's claim was wild. By building on Google's logical optimisations and applying custom physical optimisations for neutral atoms, they claimed just 10K physical qubits were sufficient to run Shor's algorithm on secp256k1. That number is mind-bogglingly low.

Knowing essentially nothing about neutral atoms when Oratomic's paper landed, I was intrigued and decided to learn more about the tech. I fell straight down the rabbit hole and spent a couple hundred hours on the topic. I got a little obsessed and watched every YouTube video I could find and spoke to a bunch of experts.

My conclusion? The tech is real, very real. Even Google recently decided to start a neutral atom lab, a notable pivot from their sole focus on superconducting qubits. If you care about qday, i.e. the day a quantum computer will break the first piece of cryptography in production, neutral atoms demand your attention. I shared some of my learnings on Shor and neutral atoms in a 30min talk at the ZKProof cryptography conference. You can find it on YouTube by searching "zkproof neutral atom".

Here's an interesting observation about this duo of breakthrough papers: neither Google nor Oratomic say a word about what their results mean for qday. No timelines. Zero. Nada. That is especially baffling given that the whole point of whitehat quantum cryptanalysis is to inform qday estimations and help the general public make good decisions.

So let me attempt to partially fill the silence, similarly to what Scott Aaronson did in his April 29 post. Given everything I know, including scary non-public information, I now put the odds of qday by 2032 at 50%. 10% by 2030.

Anecdotally, the US government has its own date: 2035. Originating at the NSA and later adopted by NIST, it's when branches of the US government will be disallowed from using quantum-vulnerable cryptography. In plain language: with hindsight, that date is a joke and should be discounted entirely. I don't see how NIST avoids being forced to pull it forward by years.

Part 3: post-quantum cryptography

There are good reasons to sound the alarm today, but please do not panic. Rushing carelessly towards immature post-quantum cryptography is a recipe for disaster. IMO a good target date for migration is 2029, roughly 3.5 years out. 2029 happens to be the date selected by Google, Cloudflare, and the Ethereum Foundation.

These days most of my time goes to safely migrating Ethereum towards post-quantum cryptography as part of the broader lean Ethereum effort. There's a lot to do. We need to rip out and replace BLS signatures at the consensus layer, KZG commitments at the data layer, and ECDSA signatures at the execution layer.

The plan to get there is compelling, and is based on hash-based cryptography. Within the Ethereum Foundation we've developed a Swiss army knife called leanVM (github[.]com/leanEthereum/leanVM) powered by the magic of hash-based SNARKs. Thanks to truly exceptional work by Emile, Thomas, and others, its performance is derisked. Regarding security, leanVM is a jewel, a minimal zkVM crafted for end-to-end formal verification and maximum security.

Want to help? There are two $1M initiatives. First, the Proximity Prize (proximityprize[.]org). Solve a long-standing mathematical conjecture in coding theory, improve hash-based SNARKs, and go home a millionaire. Second, the Poseidon Initiative (poseidon-initiative[.]info), offers $1M for breaking Poseidon, the SNARK-friendly hash function.

[Ari Paul @AriDavidPaul]

Amazing. Pensions forced to buy Space X IPO en masse even if it’s unprofitable. Impressive coup by Musk.

[ecneladis @ecneladis]

Are we already in the phase of slop hardware?

AI augmented design fackups you can’t undo with git revert.

[ecneladis @ecneladis]

Correct meme, retarded reasoning.

Which one is growing 10x YoY? And Antropic rev is currently at $47B.

[Leshka.eth ⛩ @leshka_eth]

Anthropic valuation - $965 billion
Samsung valuation - $850 billion

Anthropic revenue - $7 billion
Samsung revenue - $230 billion

[ecneladis @ecneladis]

Now compare rev of these companies and money values now vs 25 years ago.

[Thierry from arvy 🇨🇭 @ThierryBorgeat]

Three companies are about to IPO at a higher combined value than all 2,600 dot-com IPOs from 1995 to 2000 combined.

– SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic (2026): ~$3.75 trillion
– Every dot-com IPO from 1995–2000, inflation-adjusted: ~$3.00 trillion

Three names vs. two thousand six hundred names.

The 90s mania had Pets. com, Webvan, eToys, theGlobe, Drkoop, and a thousand others nobody remembers.

This mania has three companies. Each one priced at "generational opportunity."

Manias used to be diversified. This one is concentrated.

History says concentration is what makes the unwinding faster, not slower.

[Max Hodak @maxhodak_]

malware indistinguishable from sophons

[Anish Moonka @anishmoonka]

Winston Churchill fought his depression with bricks. He'd lay them for hours at his country home in Kent. He joined the bricklayers' union. And in 1921 he wrote about why it worked. It took psychology another 75 years to catch up.

He called his depression the "Black Dog." It followed him for decades. His method for fighting it back was as basic as it sounds: laying brick after brick, hour after hour.

Churchill spelled out his theory in a long essay for The Strand Magazine. People who think for a living, he wrote, can't fix a tired brain just by resting it. They have to use a different part of themselves. The part that moves the eyes and the hands. Woodworking, chemistry, bookbinding, bricklaying, painting. Anything that drags the body into a problem the mind can't solve by itself.

Modern psychology now calls this behavioral activation. It's one of the most-studied depression treatments out there. Depression sets a behavior trap. You feel bad, so you stop doing things, and doing less means less to feel good about. Feeling worse makes you do even less. The loop tightens until you can't breathe inside it.

Behavioral activation breaks the loop from the action side. You schedule the activity first, even when every part of you doesn't want to. Doing it produces small rewards: a wall gets straighter, a painting fills in, a messy room gets clean. Those small rewards slowly rewire the brain. Action comes first, and the feeling follows.

Researchers at the University of Washington put this to the test in 2006. They studied 241 adults with major depression and compared three treatments: behavioral activation, regular talk therapy, and antidepressants. For the people who were most severely depressed, behavioral activation matched the drugs. It beat the talk therapy. A 2014 review of more than 1,500 patients across 26 trials backed up the result.

Physical work like bricklaying does something extra on top of this. It crowds out rumination, the looping bad thoughts that grind people down during the worst stretches of depression. Bricklaying needs both hands and gives feedback brick by brick: each one is straight or crooked. After an hour you can see exactly how much wall you built. No room left for the mental chewing.

The line George Mack used in his post, "depression hates a moving target," is good poetry. The science behind it is sharper. Depression hates a brain that has somewhere else to be.

[ecneladis @ecneladis]

Github devs, have you tried switching from Copilot to Claude or Codex?

[ecneladis @ecneladis]

And it's already happening! https://t.co/BJjq54VwGk

[ecneladis @ecneladis]

GitHub is on a slippery slope right now with all the internal and external issues. They should listen to @dhh or they're going to be disrupted by a more agent-friendly platform.

[ecneladis @ecneladis]

@Sosowski Can’t you just stop accepting payments (make it free / disable paid features) or simply delist game from stores?

[ecneladis @ecneladis]

@Jason I'm in

[ecneladis @ecneladis]

Red Queen's race.

[Chamath Palihapitiya @chamath]

ummm so tokenmaxxing didn't increase operating margins?!?!?

of course it didn't. its just that the cto of uber had the courage to say the quiet part out loud.

[ecneladis @ecneladis]

Paradigm shift from Zero Marginal Costs → Opportunity Costs

Raw thoughts after reading this article.
1. If Tesla goes into chip fab and put AI datacenters into space, they can went back to zero marginal costs again or at least create massive gap vs rest of the market. Free sun energy, no regulatory and land bottlenecks, it can possibly offset cost of hardware upgrades/replacements by putting other's hardware into space (see Project Suncatcher by Google)
2. At some point a lot of these AI capabilities will be probably distilled again into "static" code and smaller models (running on the client side → removing computing cost), it just doesn't make sense now during hyper-growth phase

[Stratechery @stratechery]

Mythos, Muse, and the Opportunity Cost of Compute

Does Aggregation Theory survive in a world of constrained compute? Yes, insomuch as controlling demand will give power over supply.

https://t.co/f7cUXA8uBg