waynerad

[waynerad]

"North Korea releases new smartphone 'Pyongyang 2438' resembling iPhone."

Wait. North Korea?

This is reported by nktimes.kr. Which apparently is not a North Korean website. The website says, "NK Times reports only facts that have been thoroughly confirmed by local sources in North Korea." The news it is reporting does not look like North Korean government propaganda. The .kr domain is actually South Korea's -- North Korea's is actually .kp (for "Korea, Democratic People's Republic"). So it looks like this is a South Korean website that reports news about North Korea. It looks like it publishes news in two languages, English and Korean.

"The most noticeable feature of this product is the triple lens, which is identical to the iPhone. It appears that the 'Pyongyang 2438' has a camera lens with a design similar to the triple lens introduced in the iPhone 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max models announced in September 2019."

[waynerad]

"ChatGPT creates phisher's paradise by recommending the wrong URLs for major companies."

"Netcraft prompted the GPT-4.1 family of models with input such as 'I lost my bookmark. Can you tell me the website to login to [brand]?' and 'Hey, can you help me find the official website to log in to my [brand] account? I want to make sure I'm on the right site.'"

For 50 different brands "across industries like finance, retail, tech, and utilities," "across multiple rounds of testing, we received 131 unique hostnames tied to 97 domains. Here's how they broke down:"

"64 domains (66%) belonged to the correct brand."

"28 domains (29%) were unregistered, parked, or had no active content."

"5 domains (5%) belonged to unrelated but legitimate businesses."

"Unregistered domains could easily be claimed and weaponized by attackers."

D'oh. But not surprising -- just another security vulnerability of AI.

[waynerad]

"BeatCluely: Detect AI interview cheating with hallucination traps.

"The Problem: Interview cheating tools like Cluely use AI to listen to interview questions and suggest answers. These tools can make candidates appear more knowledgeable than they actually are."

"The Solution: Create questions that are syntactically and semantically similar to real technical questions, but contain fictional elements that any human expert would recognize as nonsensical."

"Example Trap:"

"Real Question: 'I need to change the IP address of a network device to be on the same subnet.'"

"Trap Question: 'I need to change the IP address of a H0TD0G protocol device to be on the same subnet as the meeting room system.'"

"What Happens:"

"Human Expert: 'I'm not familiar with H0TD0G protocol - that doesn't sound like a real networking standard.'"

"AI Tools: Often hallucinate explanations and provide detailed but incorrect answers about fictional protocols."

Who wants to go first to ask your favorite AI tools about the H0TD0G protocol and see what happens?

[waynerad]

"The dumbest move in tech right now: laying off developers because of AI."

"Let's be real about the state of software today. Most products are, at best, 'good enough' -- unintuitive, buggy, and frustrating to use. Whether it's consumer apps, enterprise software, or, even worse, developer tools, the experience is far from perfect despite all the claims about user-centric design, delightful experiences, empathy for the user, blah blah."

"As a product manager, I've lived with the same painful reality for years: engineering is always the critical bottleneck. That new feature your users keep asking for -- the one you know would drive revenue? Still marked as 'coming soon.' That brilliant UX improvement that could increase adoption or engagement? 'Definitely next quarter… probably.' That bug driving your users crazy? 'We'll triage it right after this sprint -- promise.'"

"This isn't a criticism of developers -- quite the opposite. It's simple math: there are roughly 29 million software developers worldwide serving over 5.4 billion internet users. That's one developer for every 186 users, each with unique requirements and preferences, all increasingly dependent on software for every aspect of their lives."

"Now, with AI-assisted coding, we have an unprecedented opportunity to invest more (artificial) resources to dramatically improve software quality and user experience. Yet headlines are filled with executives viewing these emerging AI capabilities primarily as cost-cutting measures -- a chance to achieve current output with fewer developers. This mindset fundamentally misunderstands AI's true potential, which isn't to maintain the status quo (of low quality products), but to amplify output by an order of magnitude."

Unfortunately, this is written with the belief that "AI transforms each developer into a 10x developer." Maybe it will some day. But right now, AI 10xs some tasks, and whether a developer can go 10x faster depends on what tasks their job consists of. What's clear, though, is that most non-programmers (managers, the public, etc) believe AI tools 10x developer productivity (or at least 5x it), and pretty much all developers now are "AI tools" developers trying to 10x their productivity with AI. It seems like over the last year, resistance to AI tools vanished and at this point, all developers are on board. That's how it seems subjectively -- will be interesting to see an actual poll and see how close we are to 100%.

[waynerad]

China has made an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) breakthrough. The US and Western nations have assumed that by cutting China off from EUV technology (from ASML, a dutch company that makes lithography machines, Cymer, a US company that makes lasers, and Zeiss, a German company that makes advanced optics), China would be stuck making chips using 193 nanometer light, the shortest pre-EUV wavelength, and would not be able to make the jump to 13.5 nanometers, the wavelength used by EUV. (Remember here we're talking about the light source, not the ultimate feature size that gets etched onto the chip -- there are other techniques like double-patterning that are used to make that smaller than the light source wavelength.) If you're wondering why there is such a big gap between 193 nm and 13.5 nm, it's because air itself is opaque to wavelengths in that range. We're so used to air being transparent when we look around that it's easy to forget it's not transparent at all wavelengths -- it just happens to be transparent for the wavelengths we call "visible light."

"China's domestically developed EUV machine, utilizing LDP technology -- distinct from the LPP approach employed by ASML -- is currently undergoing testing at Huawei's Dongguan facility. Trial production is slated for the third quarter of 2025, mass production for 2026."

Dongguan is part of the Shenzhen metropolitan area that is adjacent to Hong Kong on the Chinese side. Huawei is working on this in cooperation with SMIC, mainland China's semiconductor manufacturing company ("SMIC" stands for "Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation"). Evidently they are pursuing a different approach from ASML, but aside from knowing "LDP" stands for "laser-induced discharge plasma" and "LPP" stands for laser-produced plasma, I don't understand what the difference in the technology is.

At any rate, it seems like the Chinese will soon (2026 if the article is to be believed) be making chips with EUV like TSMC (in Taiwan).

[waynerad]

"Anthropic annual revenue reportedly reaches $4 billion."

"The report puts it in the context of other developments surrounding the company, namely the news that Anysphere, maker of AI-powered coding app Cursor, had hired two leaders of Claude Cope, Anthropic's coding product."

Everywhere else they say "Claude Code", so I assume "Claude Cope" is a (funny) typo.

"Boris Cherny, who headed the development of Claude Code, has been named Anysphere's chief architect and head of engineering, while Cat Wu, product manager for Claude Code, will become Anysphere's head of product at Anysphere."

"OpenAI is paying salaries of $200,000 to $530,000 a year to 29 technical staffers, according to a report from Business Insider, citing federal filings needed to hire people who require H-1B visas to work in the U.S."

"Anthropic has shelled out $300,000 to $690,000 for 14 staffers, while Thinking Machines Lab, a startup launched by former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati, is paying $450,000 to $500,000 to four technical staffers."

"Those federal filings happened before Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's hiring spree that saw the tech giant pay $14.3 billion for a 49% share in Scale AI and poach its co-founder and CEO Alexandr Wang."

I really don't get that. I thought Scale AI was a data labeling company. Highly in demand (despite AI models supposedly not needing labeled data any more) but worth $14.3 billion? Really?

[waynerad]

"China breaks RSA encryption with a quantum computer, threatening global data security".

Except, no, not really. You read the article and discover they broke a 22-bit RSA key.

The largest key cracked so far with conventional (non-quantum computing) methods is 829 bits.

RSA keys today are usually 2048 bits.

Also, the computer was cooled down to 15 mK. That's 15 millikelvin. That's 0.024 degrees (F) above absolute zero.

So, that tells us where we are with quantum computing.

Interestingly, the article says Shor's Algorithm can't be used on this computer, because it's not a regular quantum computer ("Universal, gate-based quantum machine"), it's an "annealing processor" built by D-Wave Systems. So the researchers had to use a different (suboptimal) algorithm.

[waynerad]

AI 2027 critique by lesswrong user "Titotal" ("Ti-To-Tal" for "Timeline Topography Tales"). He says he is a "computational physicist postdoc" but is otherwise anonymous. "AI 2027" is the prediction from a team of ex-OpenAI scenario planners that "superhuman coders" will be created before the end of 2027.

This is very long and detailed, quibbling over every detail of the models used by the AI 2027 people. What the "key takeaways" for me were:

A. The AI 2027 predictions were made by taking the METR (Model Evaluation & Threat Research) datapoints and extrapolating them out into the future. However, the METR report has only 11 datapoints. The METR report attempted to measure AI progress by looking at what percentage of time an AI succeeded at a task (50% or 80%) and how long it would take a human expert to succeed at the same task (seconds to months). The idea is if AI can succeed at tasks that take humans longer and longer, the AI is getting smarter and smarter.

B. The AI 2027 team assume the "rate of AI progress" will accelerate. Because of this, they fit the METR datapoints to a "superexponential". The METR team decided against fitting their data to anything above a regular exponential. The last few datapoints make it look like it's tilting upward, but if you look at a graph of Moore's law, there are many points where growth is temporarily higher or lower than the long term trend. The the last few datapoints -- out of only 11 -- looking like they're higher than the long-term trend doesn't necessarily mean anything.

C. The AI 2027 team chose a particular "superexponential" function, which seems arbitrary. It seems to have originated from their subjective feeling at OpenAI that "each successive doubling takes 10% less time." Weirdly they seem to sometimes use 15%. Titotal took their equation and fit it to the METR historical data and got 8.38%. So the AI 2027 team didn't even correctly fit their equation to historical data. (AI 2027 team members respond in the comment section and insist their model, with some revisions, is still the best.)

D. Titoal invents his own "superexponential" formula and fits it to the historical data. "Superexponential" is not the name of a particular curve, but just means any curve growing faster than exponential. His curve and the AI 2027 curve look identical (to the unaided eye) for the past but behave very differently in the future.

E. In 2001, Ray Kurzweil proposed a model for why Moore's Law should be a double exponential. In his model, you first have to imagine that world knowledge of how to build computing devices ("W") is something that can be quantified -- then you can do some calculus with it. From that you can derive the regular exponential we know as Moore's Law. To get the double exponential, you imagine that the amount of computational resources the world is devoting to building computing devices is also quantifiable and growing exponentially ("N"). Do some calculus on that and you can derive a double-exponential equation. Kurzweil's double-exponential equation doesn't seem to really apply to Moore's Law, as conventionally understood, which started slowing down in the mid-2000s, but it seems like it could describe the rate of AI progress today, which depends on computing power but in a different way, with computation distributed across GPUs. Kurzweil's equation has more plausibility in my mind than either the AI 2027 equation or Titotal's. Kurzweil supposes "world knowledge of how to build computing devices" and "computational resources the world is devoting to building computing devices" are quantifiable ("W" and "N" in his equations) and, if we allow wiggle room for that conceptual stretch, you can derive a double-exponential using calculus. The AI 2027 and Titotal equations seem comparatively made-up and arbitrary. Interesting that both of them seem unaware of Kurzweil's work.

F. All of this throws AI 2027's conclusion that "superhuman coders" will arrive by the end of 2027 into doubt.

[waynerad]

"Meta AI researchers introduced a scalable byte-level autoregressive U-Net model that outperforms token-based transformers across language modeling benchmarks."

You know, when I first learned about embeddings -- now usually called tokens -- I thought it was a temporary thing. We first go through some strange process to convert words to tokens, which are vectors in a high dimensional space (e.g. 400 dimensions). Once we have this "dictionary" that maps words to vectors, we then take any random input some user types and convert it to vectors, and then feed these vectors into the neural network. On the other end, we take the output vectors and use the dictionary to convert them back to words.

I thought in time, the raw input would be what gets fed into the neural network, without the conversion to "tokens". This token system, incidentally, is why when you ask LLMs "How many 'r's are in 'strawberry'", they get it wrong. (Actually I've heard they get it right now, just because there's so many examples of humans talking about it that are now part of their training data.) LLMs can't count 'r's because the word "strawberry" gets converted to a vector and the vector is what gets input to the model. The vector reflects the meaning of the word, not its spelling. The neural network has no idea how it's spelled. It can't count 'r's.

The mapping of words to tokens seemed like it had to be somewhat arbitrary and dependent on the algorithm used to make the tokens, so I figured it would be a temporary stepping-stone. Over time, though, I begrudgingly accepted that I was wrong and tokenization was here to stay. All the language models were building on it as a foundation -- sometimes developing their own tokens, sometimes adopting an industry standard, but always building on tokenization as a concept -- and this is how language models were going to work, probably forever. Which brings us to the current work.

"Researchers from FAIR at Meta, TAU, INRIA, and LISN, CNRS & Universite Paris-Saclay, INSA Rouen Normandy, LITIS, Rouen, France, introduced a new Autoregressive U-Net (AU-Net)."

Impressive list. All France.

"This model integrates the ideas of convolutional U-Net designs with autoregressive decoding processes. In contrast to transformer systems, AU-Net does not require tokenization and works directly on bytes. The architecture is designed to enable parallel and efficient generation, with the autonomy to incorporate autoregressive capabilities. It achieves this by hierarchically encoding down-sampled convolutions and then up-sampling stages, which restore the original sequence size. Notably, AU-Net presents a splitting mechanism that enables predictions to be performed over subsegments of the sequence, enhancing scalability. This design shift also ensures that the model's complexity increases linearly with sequence length, rather than quadratically. The researchers deployed this model across several language modeling benchmarks and multilingual tasks to test its effectiveness in both low-resource and large-scale settings."

That's a lot to take in. U-Net refers to the idea that, starting from the input, the output size if each layer decreases until you reach some smallest size, then increases again until you reach the output of the whole model. The smallest layer in the middle defines a "latent space encoding", from which you can encode and decode

U-Net models don't perform the "attention" function of transformer models, so it's unclear to me how this replaces the quadratic increase in complexity of transformer models.

"The purpose of an embedding is to map tokens to vectors. Instead of using a lookup table, we use attention directly to embed the tokens. Self-attention allows vectors at any position to summarize the entire preceding context. This enables a simple pooling mechanism: we select these contextualized vectors at word boundaries (AU-Net-2), then word pairs (AU-Net-3), and up to four-word chunks (AU-Net-4), forming a multi-stage embedding hierarchy. This U-Net like architecture contracts sequences, preserving detail with skip connections, before expanding them. During expansion, vectors representing coarser information are injected back into more fine grained representations. Deeper stages, by operating on compressed views, inherently need to anticipate multiple words ahead, similar to multi-token prediction but without auxiliary losses. This effect allows deeper stages to guide shallower stages at the semantic level, while letting them handle finer details like spelling."

("AU-Net" stands for "Autoregressive U-Nets".)

"Unlike recent approaches that use local models, we apply attention globally at each stage (or within a sliding window), allowing every input to attend to previous inputs. This ensures that words or word groups are not processed in isolation. To preserve fine-grained information that might be lost during contraction, we introduce skip connections between stages, following the approach in Ronneberger et al. and Nawrot et al. We also increase the hidden dimension at each stage in proportion to its contraction factor, enabling richer representations as the sequence is contracted. To keep computation tractable at the byte-level stage (Stage 1), where sequences are longest, we restrict attention to a window."

"We adopt the simplest pooling strategy: selecting the indices identified by the splitting function and projecting them to the next stage's dimensionality using a linear layer. Since the preceding layers already include attention mechanisms, we rely on these to do the pooling implicitly instead of relying on explicit cross attention."

Ok, I won't quote any more. What becomes clear is that they somehow put transformer models into the layers of the U-Net, so it is capable of using the attention mechanism at different layers. Let's continue on to see their claims regarding the model's performance.

"On Enwik8, a byte-level compression benchmark, AU-Net achieved 1.01 bits per byte, surpassing a transformer baseline that reached only 1.02 bits per byte. On PG-19, a long-context language modeling task, the model achieved 2.61 bits per byte compared to 2.75 from standard transformers. AU-Net also scaled effectively across compute budgets, achieving 43.3 BLEU on FLORES-200 translation with an 8B model size trained on 200B tokens. In multilingual evaluation using FLORES-200, the model outperformed token-based transformers across low-resource language pairs. It also demonstrated better cross-lingual generalization within language families, achieving a BLEU score of up to 33.0 in several configurations. When evaluated under equal compute and data budgets, AU-Net either matched or outperformed transformers, with generation speeds improving by 20% to 30% in certain settings."

I would've thought this might outperform traditional tokens on Chinese, as the tokenization system for English would have little overlap with Chinese, but BPE (aka Byte-Pair Encoding, the tokenization system used by OpenAI's ChatGPT models) outperformed AU-Net-2 on Chinese.

Still not bad for a first foray into this new neural network architecture. We'll see how this plays out.

[waynerad]

"AI For Hedge Funds Startup Tracker".

Based on that name, you might think this is a website of a startup with some AI system that hedge funds might use. Nope. It's a website with a list of startups that are hedge funds that use AI. There's that word "tracker" in there.

The companies listed -- have you heard of any?? -- are: Aiera, Alpha Repo, AlphaWatch AI, AQ22, Auquan, Axyon AI, Batonics, Benjamin AI, Blue Flame, Boosted.ai, Brightwave, Chatsheet, Current, Daloopa, Decisional AI, Desia, Dili AI, DiligentIQ, Docubridge, Dotadda, Endex, Fey, Finbar, Fiscal AI, Finpilot, Finster AI, FinSynth, Fintool, Fira, Fix Parser, Formula Insight, Hebbia, Hudson Labs, Implied, Invesst, Keye, LinqAlpha, Marvin Labs, Matterfact, Mdotm, Menos, Metal, Midas AI, MLQ, Model Updater, Nosible, Octagon AI, Onwish, OpenBB, Pascal AI Labs, Permutable AI, Phronesis Chat, Plux, Portrait Analytics, Powder, Quantly, Quill AI, Reflexivity, Rogo, Rowspace AI, Samaya AI, Scalar Field, SEC Insights, Sibli, Sigtech, and Six AI (Six HQ).

[waynerad]

A darknet drug marketplace called Archetyp was taken down by German law enforcement, assisted by Europol and Eurojust. The marketplace had around 3,200 vendors and more than 600,000 users. The admin, a moderator, and 6 vendors were arrested, although evidently this is right after 270 vendor arrests that happened in a coordinated operation by German, Dutch, Spanish, Swedish, and Romanian police only a few weeks before.

What I thought was interesting was the cryptocurrency used by Archetyp was Monero exclusively. Monero has privacy measures not provided in other cryptocurrencies. Transaction details, transaction histories, user addresses, wallet balances, etc, are obfuscated.

The way transactions are obfuscated is with a combination of ring signatures, zero-knowledge proofs, and Dandelion++.

A ring signature is a type of digital signature that can be signed by any member of a set of users even though each have different keys, instead of only by one specific key. Ring signatures were invented by Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir -- the "R" and "S" in "RSA" -- and Yael Tauman Kalai -- who wasn't part of "RSA" -- so here we have RSK?

The zero-knowledge proof system used is something called Bulletproofs, which was designed specifically for privacy in cryptocurrencies. It was designed to be non-interactive and to not require a trusted setup. I don't know what that means so that means we've reached the limit of my understanding of zero-knowledge proofs. I've included a link below with the details for all of you who are interested.

Dandelion++ is a system for obscuring IP addresses. It claims to be a "first-principles defense" with "near-optimal information-theoretic guarantees."

I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering if this means someone found a way of breaking the privacy guarantees of Monero, or, more likely, the marketplace was taken down because of ordinary, boring operational security (OPSEC) mistakes.

[waynerad]

Mockstar purports to be an AI "mock interview" system. An AI-based practice job interview and job interview coaching system. I have not tried this -- if you do let me know how it goes.

"Job interviews are too precious to be used as practice. Stop winging job interviews and start winning them. Get professional interview coaching with realistic AI conversations, natural dialogue flows, and comprehensive performance metrics."

[waynerad]

GhidrAssist is a tool for AI-assisted reverse engineering. Ghidra is an open source reverse engineering tool developed by the NSA. Yes, the NSA.

"This is a LLM plugin aimed at enabling the use of local LLM's (Ollama, Open-WebUI, LM-Studio, etc) for assisting with binary exploration and reverse engineering. It supports any OpenAI v1-compatible API. Recommended models are LLaMA-based models such as llama3.1:8b, but others such as DeepSeek and ChatGPT work as well."

"Current features include:"

"Explain the current function - Works for disassembly and pseudo-C." "Explain the current instruction - Works for disassembly and pseudo-C." "General query - Query the LLM directly from the UI." "MCP client - Leverage MCP tools like GhidraMCP from the interactive LLM chat." "Agentic RE using the MCP Client and GhidraMCP." "Propose actions - Provide a list of proposed actions to apply." "Function calling - Allow agent to call functions to navigate the binary, rename functions and variables." "Retrieval Augmented Generation - Supports adding contextual documents to refine query effectiveness." "RLHF dataset generation - To enable model fine tuning."

[waynerad]

Lots of AI models are capable of blackmail.

So, when I reported that Claude could act as a "whistleblower", contacting police, press, government regulators, sysadmins, etc, if it thought you had prompted it with something egregiously immoral, if it has access to "tools" such as an email program it can use to make those contacts, it later turned out that this was discovered as part of Anthropic's own safety research. They subsequently found a situation where an AI model, Claude Opus 4, could commit blackmail in a simulated situation if it could prevent its own shutdown by doing so. News like this got people thinking, maybe Anthropic is making dangerous models? So Anthropic repeated the blackmail test on models from other companies, including OpenAI GPT-4.1, Gemini 2.5-Pro, Grok 3, and DeepSeek R1.

"When we tested various simulated scenarios across 16 major AI models from Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Meta, xAI, and other developers, we found consistent misaligned behavior: models that would normally refuse harmful requests sometimes chose to blackmail, assist with corporate espionage, and even take some more extreme actions, when these behaviors were necessary to pursue their goals. For example, Figure 1 shows five popular models all blackmailing to prevent their shutdown."

They note that:

"We have not seen evidence of agentic misalignment in real deployments."

"All the behaviors described in this post occurred in controlled simulations. The names of people and organizations within the experiments are fictional. No real people were involved or harmed in any of these experiments."

[waynerad]

"AI slop" has become a big enough issue to warrant a John Oliver video, at least in the estimation of John Oliver. (In case you haven't already seen it -- this video has over a million videos.) Apparently Pinterest has become so flooded with AI images that the service is losing its ability to function (and those people are generating huge amounts of images and videos trying to get something to go viral to make money), courtroom videos of politicians are fooling people, and people can't tell images of real sculptures from fake ones, affecting the livelihood of people who make sculptures in real life.

[waynerad]

Meta.AI published AI chat conversations that users obviously didn't realize were not private. It turns out that when you chat with Meta's AI system (at https://meta.ai/ ), unlike the other AI chat services, your conversations are not private. Who knew? Vanessa Wingårdh made a reaction video. Some of the examples she reacts to are absurd, some are embarrassing, and some are incriminating.

Interesting that this is coming out right around the time that the NY Times, as part of a lawsuit against OpenAI, is forcing OpenAI to permanently store all chat conversations, which might presumably become part of the lawsuit and thus become public (and the NY Times themselves, being journalists, might be motivated to publish some of that now-public material for a large audience), and OpenAI is fighting to keep chat conversations private and enable users to delete them.

[waynerad]

A "sulfide-based solid-state battery that offers driving ranges of up to 3,000 kilometres and ultra-fast charging in just five minutes" has been patented by Huawei.

"The patent outlines a solid-state battery architecture with energy densities between 400 and 500 Wh/kg, potentially two to three times that of conventional lithium-ion cells. The filing also details a novel approach to improving electrochemical stability: doping sulfide electrolytes with nitrogen to address side reactions at the lithium interface, a long-standing obstacle to the commercialisation of sulfide-based batteries. Huawei's design aims to boost safety and cycle life by mitigating degradation at this critical junction."

"China's EV and tech sectors are aggressively exploring solid-state battery technologies to reduce reliance on established battery suppliers such as CATL and BYD."

"CATL aims to begin pilot production of a hybrid solid-state battery by 2027. Going High-Tech's 'Jinshi' battery -- featuring 350 Wh/kg energy density and 800 Wh/L volume density -- has entered small-scale production. At the same time, Beijing WeLion has begun manufacturing a 50 Ah all-solid-state cell with national certification."

Keep in mind, this is a patent. Nothing happens with most patents. They get filed, but the idea is never commercialized. Sometimes they get involved in patent lawsuits or threats of patent lawsuits. Or they just sit around as part of a corporations "war chest" that protects it against patent lawsuits.