shad3ow_

full time shoe shoe reseller-part time perps/memes
resell-amazon fba/ebay/stockX, goat
perps-ICT concepts/CRT
10% off fees

[cisum @cashcisum]

Five days in, $HUMAN has raised over $170K for the @CAIS We’re a community token supporting @MarioJoos, we’re not asking for an endorsement but please consider claiming the funds for the cause. Sign the Team Human statement at https://t.co/Le0UgdjvXL. Keep humans in control of AI

[shad3ow_ @shad3ow_]

@MarioJoos @CAIS @hendrycks 5 days into $Human and @donatedotgg shows that over $170,000 has been raised for the center for ai safety. the community for the token is growing and volume will continue to grow meaning that number will likely pale in comparison to the one even a week from now. we apologize @MarioJoos for the disrespect thrown your way by bad actors. i have been doing my best to encourage people to sign the team human statement and to raise awareness for the movement. we see this as a community token supporting both your movement and the mission of the center for ai safety. we are not looking for an endorsement or backing of the coin, but we would love for you to consider claiming the funds for greater good. even without acknowledgment. the amount of people i come into contact with that have concerns about ai safety grows by the day. in crypto, we witness the advancement every day in this space. it’s scary. $170k could go a long way to helping create a better future for all of us. if you’re reading this and haven’t already signed the team human statement feel free to do so at https://t.co/kaeie52gPh and help keep humans in control of ai. i am human. you are human. it’s a beautiful thing. thanks for your time if you chose to read.

[shad3ow_ @shad3ow_]

arc eco in it’s infancy and major institutional backing. lots of opportunity imo. looking at arclight (liquidity layer-basically the delta of arc) and upsidedowncat (usdc too obvious) here

[shad3ow_ @shad3ow_]

@MarioJoos @CAIS @hendrycks if you read this thank you for taking the time out of your day to do so. you don’t have to endorse the token at all to accept the donation. i think the cleanest position would just be to separate the two publicly: team human/cais didn’t create, sponsor, or endorse the token, but you’re still willing to accept legitimate charitable proceeds directed toward ai safety. not only that but i know it will bring more signatures for team human. cais also accepts donations in crypto so i would assume the system is in place for that. i understand their may be legal or tax ramifications to figure out, plus PR.

the cause is bigger than the coin. ai safety is in everyone’s best interest, and if a community has generated a meaningful donation for cais, it seems better for that money to actually go toward the mission than sit unused just because the fundraising mechanism wasn’t initiated by you. we’re talking about potentially millions in donations over time. hard to not at least have a convo about that.

accepting the funds doesn’t mean endorsing speculation around the token or really crypto in general. it just means money raised for ai safety actually reaches ai safety work, which is what we all want imo. appreciate you guys thank you. i am team human

[vitalik.eth @VitalikButerin]

I don't recommend anyone scramble to move their funds to new wallets today. But we should take the risks to cryptography from AI-accelerated math seriously, and minimize our exposure to not just quantum-vulnerable cryptography, but also potentially AI-vulnerable cryptography.

The core new area of risk from this viewpoint is, unfortunately, ML-DSA / FHE / lattices.

(and it's also another reason, along with quantum, why ECDSA might fall even faster than expected, hence the "fresh address" recommendation)

So far most people have been in the mode of thinking "elliptic curves broken, hashes safe, lattices safe". But there is a good chance that the concrete security of lattices will take serious hits from the next two years of AI math.

The basic threat model is: factoring is something that naively takes 2^(n/2) time, but over decades smart people have found and optimized number field sieves, and degraded that to 2^O(n^(1/3)), which is why RSA keys and signatures need to be ~400 bytes (and not 64 bytes). What if there are skeletons in the closet like that, both for elliptic curves and lattices, that we are simply not smart enough to discover - but bots soon will be?

This is a major part of the reason why for the past year ethereum's lean roadmap has been going in the "hash-only" direction: no lattices, no ML-DSA, no Falcon, no lattice-based commitments inside ZK proofs, etc. Signatures in lean ethereum are all hash-based, either WOTS or SPHINCS-.

For signatures and proofs, we already know how to go hash-only. The bigger challenge is for *public-key encryption* - and this goes far beyond blockchains. Secure communication, anonymizing protocols, lots of things need public-key encryption.

And unfortunately there are long-standing mathematical theorems showing why public-key encryption cannot be done with hashes alone. You have to have some kind of trapdoor object that has at least one form of usable "structure" - either group theory (incl. isogenies) or lattices or code-based or potentially in the future even more newfangled and spooky things (local mixing?). But for anything that has structure, you should assume that AI will make at least some progress in breaking that structure. Here, one reasonable inference is that if you want to make something plausibly long-term secure, multiply the key sizes by 10.

To me that's a very plausible world and something not at all extreme to predict. If AI will bring us 50 years of math in 2 years, then that 50 years of math may very plausibly include a "naive factoring -> GNFS" level of improvement to our ability to break lattices. In that world, lattices will still exist, but they will have to be significantly bigger to guarantee the same level of safety.

And at those new larger sizes, hash-based constructions will beat lattice-based constructions on concrete efficiency in every use case where hash-based constructions are possible at all.

Theoretically, of course it's possible that hashes are broken too (eg. P = NP would imply that). But I think P = NP is very unlikely. And intuitively, it's much more likely that a mathematical object has exactly no exploitable structure (like hashes are intended to), than that a mathematical object has exactly ~3 forms of exploitable structure (for elliptic curves: associativity, Schoof, pairings) and not some secret fourth form of structure we have not yet discovered that greatly degrades its security (for elliptic curves, ECDLP and pairing security). Similar for LWE, SVP, RLWE and the zoo of lattice problems.

For this reason, we do not yet see any reason to worry and start padding the byte size of hashes (if we start to worry more, we would pad the round count first before doing anything to the byte size).

Concrete TLDR, my own personal views:

* Hash-based > lattice-based, in those situations where hash-based is possible at all
* For anything lattice-based, be much more paranoid on param sizes. Remember that blockchains are only a small portion of the cryptography story; this point goes far beyond blockchains and applies to eg. access to websites, secure messaging, Tor / VPNs ...
* For privacy protocols, strongly favor NOT putting encrypted notes onchain. Instead, send them offchain through some third-party mechanism.
* If it's not difficult for you, keeping your funds in addresses which have not yet been used to make a transaction is a good idea. If it's easy for you, do it. **But be careful about migrations; I personally have lost more money in botched migrations than I have lost in all hacks combined**.
* For multisig wallets, doing confirmations offchain is better than onchain, because this way the signatures of signer wallets do not get exposed to the public, so if ECDSA falls to AI much faster than expected, at least the multisig "gracefully degrades" to a 1-of-1 where the 1 is whoever was gathering the signatures - a much better place to be than "anyone can take the money"
https://t.co/oVjwZog2lL

[Bit Dawg @Bit_Dawg_]

today there’s a btc dev posting on x urging people to change wallets due to ai hacking potentials causing massive fud

this is actually insane
can you imagine if we sent the coin $Human high enough, and donate like 7+ figs in fees to @CAIS

it won’t matter now they don’t wanna associate with the coin, once the big cash rolls in they have no choice but to acknowledge the coin

and that fees be used for stopping ai from ruining crypto

crypto coin $human might save crypto

[Jet @notrich_jet]

You don't have to be against technology to be afraid of where we're heading.

For some time now, I've been watching the development of artificial intelligence with a mixture of fascination and growing concern. Because while its enormous potential is undeniable, there's a question that's becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: Do we, as a society, still have any real say in what our future will look like?

Think about actors who fear that their faces and voices could be recreated without their consent. Graphic designers, illustrators, and painters who have spent years developing their own artistic styles, only to find themselves competing with systems that can generate similar images in seconds. Musicians, writers, and filmmakers wondering whether their work will still hold value in a market increasingly flooded with AI-generated content.

Think about content creators whose faces, voices, and personalities can be used to produce videos they never actually made. About producers, investors, and people who finance the arts, who may face growing pressure to cut costs at the expense of human creativity, artistic risk, and originality.

But this isn't just a problem for people working in the creative industries.

It's also about office workers, translators, teachers, programmers, customer service representatives, and even manual laborers whose livelihoods may eventually be transformed by automation and advances in robotics.

It's about parents who don't know what kind of world their children will grow up in. People who can no longer confidently tell whether the video they're watching is real or a deepfake. And everyone wondering who will be held accountable when increasingly autonomous systems make mistakes.

I'm not saying that all these scenarios are inevitable. Nor do I believe we should reject a technology that could bring enormous benefits to science, medicine, education, and our everyday lives. I see those benefits myself.

But I don't want the future of millions of people to be determined solely by a race between a handful of the world's most powerful technology companies.

That's why I believe the #TeamHuman movement deserves our attention and support.

At its heart is a simple but important demand: slow down the development of the most advanced AI systems through international agreements, giving scientists, governments, and societies time to establish meaningful safeguards and ensure that humanity remains in control.

This isn't about stopping progress. It's about making sure progress doesn't happen without us having a say in it.

It's about giving ourselves the opportunity to understand the consequences of our decisions before they become irreversible.

Because behind every profession that might change or disappear, there's a human being. Someone who has spent years learning, building experience, developing ambitions, supporting a family, and finding dignity and purpose in their work.

And behind every piece of art, there's more than a finished product. There's someone's personal history, sensitivity, perspective, and desire to tell the world something that only they could tell.

I don't know what the world will look like in ten or twenty years. Nobody does.

But I do know that I don't want us to surrender our ability to shape that world without even having a conversation about it.

Signing a petition won't solve every problem associated with artificial intelligence. But it can send a message to policymakers that people expect more than promises from technology giants.

We deserve transparency. We deserve accountability. And above all, we deserve a voice in decisions that could fundamentally reshape our lives.

The future should belong to humanity. And humanity should have the right to decide what that future looks like.

If you believe that too, please consider signing and sharing the #TeamHuman petition.

https://t.co/BkkzwuU62x

-------------------------

For Crypto Twitter: A charity token has been created to support @CAIS, and so far, we've managed to raise over $165,000 through $Human.

Thanks to @Pumpfun, @a1lon9 and @donatedotgg, we can support causes like this in our own way.

The token is not officially affiliated with @MarioJoos or any of the Team Human founders. It's an independent, community-driven initiative supporting the Team Human movement. All generated fees go to @CAIS.

CA: 8nPoBHiBM6pybxMws9PA2JRb9BjkppBfqcZGmot4DMBC

[shad3ow_ @shad3ow_]

great post @notrich_jet
@MarioJoos @hendrycks we’re seeing this today in the crypto news about how ai could sooner than later easily figure out our private keys and encryptions effectively making draining everyone’s life savings little to no effort at all. this is real to us and real to everyone in some capacity of life whether it’s reduction in jobs, privacy, or freedom. we support the @CAIS and the coin is just a way to show that and do our part regardless of whatever bad actors have sad. we stand with team human because we are human and are frightened at the impending possibilities of the future world

[Jet @notrich_jet]

3.6M views on a post about the threat AI poses to the crypto world.

Now add content creators, actors, artists, and honestly, I could go on all day. Because alongside the fascination with how fast AI is advancing comes a much bigger question: what happens next, especially when everything is moving this fast?

What happens to the banking system? To the stock market, to crypto, or even to your own phone, where you keep so much of your private life?

That's why solana:8nPoBHiBM6pybxMws9PA2JRb9BjkppBfqcZGmot4DMBC was created, a community-driven, charitable token that has already raised over $160,000 for @CAIS and supports the #TeamHuman movement, an initiative by @MarioJoos that you can also support by signing at https://t.co/WKhGqvsjdE

[cisum @cashcisum]

@MarioJoos @hendrycks $167K liquidity for $Human could function like a research grant for AI safety. @CAIS already funds technical + conceptual work that doesn’t always need heavy GPU, and over time, even modest transaction volume could channel millions toward impact. #humans 🤝

[shad3ow_ @shad3ow_]

@LevisNFT solana:8nPoBHiBM6pybxMws9PA2JRb9BjkppBfqcZGmot4DMBC

[shad3ow_ @shad3ow_]

so many coins in heavy discount right now. $memestock extremely interesting at 765k with holder count and rabid community

[shad3ow_ @shad3ow_]

@MarioJoos @CAIS @hendrycks @a1lon9

[shad3ow_ @shad3ow_]

@MarioJoos @CAIS @hendrycks last one then i’ll back off for awhile. i’m not involved in academia so could be wrong but it seems like the $167k could be thought of as a research grant. i read some of the technical and conceptual research on the CAIS website. i don’t know a lot about what goes into the funding for research or the process but if the projects don’t require a lot of heavy gpu that would likely go a long way. even if it does require more this really could be millions of dollars in donations with enough time and transaction volume. again, i am not smart enough to know how all this works but as a citizen i think it could go a long way and be impactful to the entire world as we know it without endorsing, associating, or even acknowledging the coin or crypto in any way. appreciate your time and i’ll back off now. i’ll continue to try and get crypto community to sign the team human statement and bring more awareness overall

[shad3ow_ @shad3ow_]

@MarioJoos @hendrycks

[shad3ow_ @shad3ow_]

@MarioJoos $167k and counting that CAIS can claim at any time. i would assume you have contact with their director or associated parties. while not seeking your endorsement, it still would be in the best interest for everyone that supports slowing down ai for them to claim it. even without acknowledging anything about the coin or even saying anything at all. doesn’t matter. the money could do tremendous good for all of us moving forward. the coin is just support for your movement and the overall vision of CAIS anyway. obviously not associated in any way or looking to be. it’s a community charity and support token from a space that witnesses and deals with advancing ai every day and is worried. that level of donation is likely hard to come by and can help them get to their goals faster in a world where the speed of this might matter. food for thought. again, thank you for addressing the crypto community on all this.

[shad3ow_ @shad3ow_]

@MarioJoos @CAIS

[Jet @notrich_jet]

solana:8nPoBHiBM6pybxMws9PA2JRb9BjkppBfqcZGmot4DMBC

[shad3ow_ @shad3ow_]

@rightmreow @MarioJoos not helpful

[Jet @notrich_jet]

Thank you for your statement, you know full well how the internet works and that hate is inevitable - as a community, we can only apologize. We never claimed it was an official coin, it is simply a coin supporting your initiative. We aren't looking for an apology, we just want to clarify that this isn't a scam and the funds are genuinely being donated. Let's win together, Mario
https://t.co/TUpmMfdoJ9