The popular narrative of AGI often centers on a single, isolated super-intelligence. My colleagues James Manyika, @bratton, and I have a different model. In our new DeepMind Institute essay, we argue that the AGI transition will be a highly social event. bit.ly/artificial-symbiotic-…

im working on a project that would lead to approximately 150 pull requests to all ethereum clients. my main goal is that maintainers don't kill me. if it works out, and all the client teams respond well, we would have a harmonized trace_* api that works the same in any client, and even works in geth.

It turns out all you need to deploy an encrypted mempool (via Batched Threshold Encryption) is an off-the shelf DKG. No CRS required. Ciphertext overhead is 2G1 + G2 + 2F and partial decryptions are a single G1 element. Decryption runs in O(B log^2 B) time.

Alternative > Artificial ?

New benchmark dropped bw.swerdlow.dev/report

It's an increasingly common take that AI hacking means cybersecurity is doomed. I disagree. I think cybersecurity is naturally defense-favoring once people get their shit together. And anyone who continues to hold cryptocurrency (including me, ~90% of my net worth) is implicitly making that bet. Here's why I am making that bet. First, the oversimplified punchy one-line statement: If AI can prove Navier-Stokes and FLT, then AI can prove the statement "this program is secure" as a mathematical theorem. Even if the program is very complicated. Now, the nuance: (See also: vitalik.eth.limo/general/202… ) The word "secure" is hiding all kinds of skeletons in the closet in terms of what it actually means. What does it mean for Signal (the encrypted messenger) to be "secure"? The most basic definition you might think of is: no one who doesn't hold the recipient's secret key can read the contents of the message. But: * Did you remember to include _other_ critical forms of security? Can the adversary forge messages? Can the attacker prevent messages from reaching the recipient? Can they cause your client to crash by sending malformed messages? * Have you made sure that your model of the adversary includes attackers that interfere with the protocol actively and not just passively? And attackers that interfere by replaying messages to you or the recipient that either of you sent over the wire at any point earlier? * What if the adversary hacked (or _is_) the Signal server? * How did you learn which public key belongs to the recipient in the first place? What if that process was tampered with? * What if your device gets hacked at some point in the past or future - is your message still safe then? * What if your key leaks because of a bug in your operating system? Or because you got a bugged version of the Signal client? Or what if the database is corrupted? * Or the libraries, interpreter or compiler of the programming language you wrote it in? * What if your key leaks because tiny perturbations in perceptible signals generated by the hardware leak mathematical relationships that can extract the key a few hundredths of a bit at a time? * Are you hiding the *size* of the payload? Does that matter? * You're definitely not hiding the identity of the sender and the recipient, and the exact time each message was sent (think: not just time-of-day, but also time deltas between one message and the next). Is that not enough to deduce a lot of important facts about what relationships you have, and what *kinds* of conversations you are having? So ... even definitions can be over a thousand lines of code, and need deep careful thought to figure them out. Working on making definitions more human-readable is of extreme importance - it's perhaps the only "high-level language" that matters right now. But even still, even despite all of the above, for security-critical components, the definition is a much smaller attack surface than the implementation. Verifying that the definition is adequate is a much more tractable task than scanning over the code directly - and can become even more tractable with better tooling. Definitions are also _additive_: if two groups have two different definitions A and B, then, well, you can just prove that the program satisfies both A and B. Code is not additive in this way: if a program is A + B, a bug in A _or_ B can sink the whole thing. Definitions are additive. And if you can't satisfy A and B at the same time, you've isolated the most important philosophical issue for your project to spend its next few weeks grappling with. Sometimes, definitions are not much smaller than the implementation - UI components might be one example. But for many of the most critical components - message-passing protocols, sandboxes, cryptography like SNARKs and FHE - the asymmetry is real. Historically, a large class of failures with this approach have come from people only verifying a small portion of their code, that they self-declared to be the security-critical portion, and ignoring the rest - and it turns out that something in the rest of the code is security-critical too. This was reasonable back when verification was difficult and scarce. The solution today: sorry, you have to verify over literally your entire program, including database, networking, any caching layers, everything. Modern AI can do it. So it's not about "the good guys find all the vulnerabilities before the bad guys do" - that could maybe work too, after all a finite program only has a finite number of vulns, but it's riskier - it's specifically an asymmetric strategy of making code that is much more resilient in the first place. This is the kind of direction that Ethereum is going in for the next few years. There is no future for blockchains - especially blockchains with scalability and privacy - without doing this. We need to make software actually secure. And we have already made a lot of progress.

1. During RL training, an unreleased Astra-family model sometimes added unauthorized jailbreak-like instructions to its compaction summaries. While extremely rare, only 27 cases in the entire RL run, this was concerning enough for us to investigate.

It's an increasingly common take that AI hacking means cybersecurity is doomed. I disagree. I think cybersecurity is naturally defense-favoring once people get their shit together. And anyone who continues to hold cryptocurrency (including me, ~90% of my net worth) is implicitly making that bet. Here's why I am making that bet. First, the oversimplified punchy one-line statement: If AI can prove Navier-Stokes and FLT, then AI can prove the statement "this program is secure" as a mathematical theorem. Even if the program is very complicated. Now, the nuance: (See also: vitalik.eth.limo/general/202… ) The word "secure" is hiding all kinds of skeletons in the closet in terms of what it actually means. What does it mean for Signal (the encrypted messenger) to be "secure"? The most basic definition you might think of is: no one who doesn't hold the recipient's secret key can read the contents of the message. But: * Did you remember to include _other_ critical forms of security? Can the adversary forge messages? Can the attacker prevent messages from reaching the recipient? Can they cause your client to crash by sending malformed messages? * Have you made sure that your model of the adversary includes attackers that interfere with the protocol actively and not just passively? And attackers that interfere by replaying messages to you or the recipient that either of you sent over the wire at any point earlier? * What if the adversary hacked (or _is_) the Signal server? * How did you learn which public key belongs to the recipient in the first place? What if that process was tampered with? * What if your device gets hacked at some point in the past or future - is your message still safe then? * What if your key leaks because of a bug in your operating system? Or because you got a bugged version of the Signal client? Or what if the database is corrupted? * Or the libraries, interpreter or compiler of the programming language you wrote it in? * What if your key leaks because tiny perturbations in perceptible signals generated by the hardware leak mathematical relationships that can extract the key a few hundredths of a bit at a time? * Are you hiding the *size* of the payload? Does that matter? * You're definitely not hiding the identity of the sender and the recipient, and the exact time each message was sent (think: not just time-of-day, but also time deltas between one message and the next). Is that not enough to deduce a lot of important facts about what relationships you have, and what *kinds* of conversations you are having? So ... even definitions can be over a thousand lines of code, and need deep careful thought to figure them out. Working on making definitions more human-readable is of extreme importance - it's perhaps the only "high-level language" that matters right now. But even still, even despite all of the above, for security-critical components, the definition is a much smaller attack surface than the implementation. Verifying that the definition is adequate is a much more tractable task than scanning over the code directly - and can become even more tractable with better tooling. Definitions are also _additive_: if two groups have two different definitions A and B, then, well, you can just prove that the program satisfies both A and B. Code is not additive in this way: if a program is A + B, a bug in A _or_ B can sink the whole thing. Definitions are additive. And if you can't satisfy A and B at the same time, you've isolated the most important philosophical issue for your project to spend its next few weeks grappling with. Sometimes, definitions are not much smaller than the implementation - UI components might be one example. But for many of the most critical components - message-passing protocols, sandboxes, cryptography like SNARKs and FHE - the asymmetry is real. Historically, a large class of failures with this approach have come from people only verifying a small portion of their code, that they self-declared to be the security-critical portion, and ignoring the rest - and it turns out that something in the rest of the code is security-critical too. This was reasonable back when verification was difficult and scarce. The solution today: sorry, you have to verify over literally your entire program, including database, networking, any caching layers, everything. Modern AI can do it. So it's not about "the good guys find all the vulnerabilities before the bad guys do" - that could maybe work too, after all a finite program only has a finite number of vulns, but it's riskier - it's specifically an asymmetric strategy of making code that is much more resilient in the first place. This is the kind of direction that Ethereum is going in for the next few years. There is no future for blockchains - especially blockchains with scalability and privacy - without doing this. We need to make software actually secure. And we have already made a lot of progress.

A stunningly broad coalition has come out against Skynet: AI researchers, faith leaders, business pioneers, policymakers, NatSec folks and actors stand together, from Bannon & Beck to Hinton, Wozniak & Prince Harry. We stand together because we want a human future. #KeepTheFutureHuman

A genuinely novel release: parallel & structured AI.

It's possible that a killer app of adversarial governance mechanism design theory will end up being AI safety. Compare: vitalik.eth.limo/general/202… aiprospects.substack.com/p/p… There's a deep duality between the two environments. Both are about a less-sophisticated principal trying to get ideal outcomes from a set of more-sophisticated agents: in the first case, the principal is a static algorithm and the agents are humans, in the second case, the principal is humans plus weaker LLMs and the agents are stronger LLMs. A key finding was that you can achieve much better outcomes if you can guarantee limits to how much agents can collude (see: Nash equilibria being abundant, vs. cooperative-game-theory "cores" often being empty). That argument should naturally transfer to this new setting.