Say I am willing to accept pill number 3, which essentially means giving up the world we know and live in.
First of all, this means a RACE OF ARMS of AI models fighting each other and in the end the party with more AI resources will win, while consuming a shit ton of resources.
Second of all, the more I believe AI will be able to do anything, the more I should focus on things that require a human (your words, not mine). Therefore, the only correct stance I see is not believe in AI and therefore not use it, or fully believe in AI and therefore become an expert in something it cannot do, i.e. not using it either.
A core assumption everyone makes that I question is that a race, fight, or competition is a preordained outcome. This is a cornerstone of the doomer thesis and its variations.
Evolution has no preference. There are cooperators, both direct and indirect, and predators both direct and indirect. Indirect cooperators are things like bacteria in soil that recycle plant and animal waste, while indirect predation is when something just pushes something else out or otherwise harms it without direct confrontation.
So if we go by evolution, we could say it’s a toss up.
Evolution is blind though. It has no ability to plan or exercise foresight.
Intelligence can and does plan. Superintelligence, we have to assume, will plan better and further into the future and consider more options.
All this is to say: what if it looks for win-win options or at least win-neutral ones?
I’m simply arguing that the default assumption of hostility says more about us than a potential alien intelligence. I’m not aware or any reason it couldn’t be hostile or dangerous, but it’s not preordained and I’d argue it’s less likely here than with blind evolution.
> This is the supply that a sufficiently powerful quantum attacker could steal by inverting ECDSA/Schnorr signatures
While I only read approximately one more sentence than you did of tfa, I would also like to know what "sufficiently powerful" means and why we don't want public keys to be public
Yes; and that's the right instinct. Public keys are designed to be safely public under classical assumptions: deriving a private key from a secp256k1 public key takes roughly 2^128 operations classically, which is practically infinite.
The quantum caveat is that Shor's algorithm solves exactly that problem (elliptic-curve discrete log) in polynomial time on a sufficiently large quantum computer. So "this key is public" goes from "safe by design" to "spendable by whoever builds such a machine," if one is ever built.
Bitcoin's address design actually anticipated a version of this: most address types don't put the public key on chain at all, they put a hash of it (the "PKH" in P2PKH/P2WPKH). The key is only revealed the moment you spend. Hash functions hold up under quantum attack (Grover's only halves the margin), so coins behind an unrevealed hash stay protected even in that world.
The 25.3% is the set where that protection is already gone: early pay-to-pubkey outputs that embed the key directly, Taproot outputs (the address IS the key, by design), and - the largest bucket - addresses that were reused after a spend, which reveals the key permanently.
So: public keys being public is fine today. The measurement is how much value sits where "fine today" has a quantum expiry date attached.
Knowing that everything in here is people asking why their font is missing:
I highly recommend having a look at
[ MAPLE MONO ]
(on Github https://github.com/subframe7536/Maple-font).
It has amazing readability, looks nice, is compatible with NF if you use that.
I received compliments from people looking over my shoulder for my f'ing font?!
Huge shoutout to subframe7536 ^^
The slant and connective distance of the cursive italic l are noticeably different than of the other letters, so every word that includes one is very jarring.
It looks like they naively aligned the slant of the leftmost edge at the mid-height of the glyph, which is not the right way to optically align shapes, especially for a symbol with asymmetric curvature (the leading face of the loop leans substantially more than the trailing face). And then in addition to that, a too-wide arrangement when adjoining ("ul", "ll", etc) causes excess dead space around adjoined pairs.
You see this quite strongly in the "null" that appears on line 5 in their example screenshot. The two "l"s both appear to lean more than the "nu", and the "ul" has more internal space than the "nu", and the "ll" has even more than that.
I've been a long time Fira Code user, but recently switched to Maple - I love it. Mostly because of the "single storey" `a`, but that's just a personal preference of mine.
Fira Code does have a "single storey" a. You can activate it by passing the "cv01" feature flag to your text editor of choice. (If the text editor supports otf font features)
Thanks for the tip! I really need to look into these feature flags some more to understand how they work. I noticed that the Inter font has similar flags too.
What do you like about it? I like that the I and l are distinctive, and of course the distinction between 0 and O. However, there are some nice letter differentiators that it is missing, such as a shorter middle cane in the letter "m" (Ubuntu Mono has this for example).
That dollar sign is awful. I kinda dig some parts of this, but my brain simply doesn't parse that as a dollar sign; it requires extra thought to recognize it.
They have not posted anything on social media in a long time and there was some downtime a few months ago. I would really like to use this primarily, but it is really a problem when your DNS suddenly becomes unavailable without any note from the devs ^^
This is exactly that. All this site does is direct to the "Web" search option in Google. Hence the name "&udm=14", because that is the query parameter causing Google to display the web search option
First of all, this means a RACE OF ARMS of AI models fighting each other and in the end the party with more AI resources will win, while consuming a shit ton of resources.
Second of all, the more I believe AI will be able to do anything, the more I should focus on things that require a human (your words, not mine). Therefore, the only correct stance I see is not believe in AI and therefore not use it, or fully believe in AI and therefore become an expert in something it cannot do, i.e. not using it either.
Edit: great read, amazingly written
reply