Geoffrey Irving @geoffreyirving
— saved image
Geoffrey Irving @geoffreyirving · 16h Dan with the key point! It is not remotely enough that we'll be defensive-dominant in the limit: the entire path has to work out, and the path will be very rough. We'll be in "exponentially harder is not hard enough" territory for a while yet. [quoted link card] naml.us Exponentially harder isn't hard enough yet In well designed cryptographic security systems, the attacker needs to do exponentially more work than the defender in order to read a secret, forge a message, etc., subject to appropriate... Geoffrey Irving · Tuesday, 3 July 2012 [quoted tweet] Dan Lahav @dan_lahav · 19h [link card image] The End-State Fallacy: Where Is AI Security Going? Frontier AI models had a giant performance gain in coding in the ...
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Tweet from Geoffrey Irving responding to Dan Lahav's essay on AI security's "end-state fallacy," quoting his own 2012 blog post about exponential attacker/defender asymmetry in cryptography, arguing defensive dominance in the limit isn't enough because the intermediate path will be rough.