this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2026
220 points (81.2% liked)

Technology

88183 readers
2582 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm not an AI techie and I'm not well educated on LLMs/AI in general. The issue I'm having is the dichotomy between how people talk about it. I've heard completely opposite ends of the spectrum. From AI is quickly becoming advanced enough to threaten human society, all the way to its a glorified dictionary/search engine that can't really do much of anything. I know Lemmy has a steep anti-AI slant. But, can someone talk about this in a way I can wrap my head around why the divide seems so big?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I think a big unknown right now, would be how many Millennium Problems are new GenAI techniques able to bruteforce with existing mathematical techniques/theories?

We just saw one massive bruteforce, can we bruteforce any of the Millennium problems related to cryptography? Because then all hell could break lose rather quickly

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

can we bruteforce any of the Millennium problems related to cryptography

Cryptographic theory says: no. The whole basis of cryptographic security is that brute forcing doesn't work (in any reasonable timeframe.)

Theories are overturned, from time to time.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 19 hours ago

Strangely, I haven't read a single headline about AI making breakthroughs in Quantum computing... but you know certain players are working in that direction.

Back in the 80s they were teaching that cryptography protected secrets "for a time" and how long they need to be protected dictated how hard you go at the key length and other costs of en/decryption. By the 00s we could easily and quickly run key lengths so hard (for conventional computation) to crack that they were essentially protected "forever" - at least until quantum algorithms shake things up a bit. That's the next unknown: when Shor's algorithm will start delivering real world results - like the end of BTC.

[–] ctrl_alt_esc@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

That just proves that these tools do not possess any kind of intelligence at all. They're great at bruteforcing, precisely because it doesn't require any intelligence. I don't expect them to solve any of the millenium problems that cannot be brute-forced. In addition, as far as, I know the navier-stokes solution has not been verified yet.