Sounds like they should charge for software updates then, as that is directly related to the ongoing work for people who have already bought the software.
Because launch costs and density are completely imaginary. The whole thing is predicated on launch vehicles they hope someone builds eventually. They also appear to have profoundly miscalculated their radiation shielding costs and amounts, but I'm not really motivated to calculate that correctly.
Because running 40MW of high-speed inference on GPUs is a different sort of mission then bolting a camera to a Jetson SBC and dropping a cubesat into orbit?
Falcon heavy has never flown SSO, but it's probably over $1500/kg, which is >50x more expensive. Even the most optimistic estimates for a future starship launch cost is at least $100/kg, so it makes no sense to use $30/kg.
The other line items are probably similarly unrealistic since they include their own launch costs as well.
They also spec 300 racks of 500kg each, which is <40% of the weight of the comparable land rack. I doubt the full weight reduction since the racks still need to survive launch force/vibration in addition to fluid/pressure enclosures that land racks don't require. I think it's likely that just about every part of this report has a similarly cooked numbers, and we can just throw the whole thing out.
Why in the world would that specific 3x3 matrix be a trigger for an attack? Are they trying to find someone doing some particular kind of numerical analysis?
Presumably it's so it can be used as a subdependency for setting up an attack in a popular, legitimate package, e.g. via a pull request. The code in the legitimate package would not arouse suspicion at all.
>Are there any notable classes of programs/problems where you'd do an LU decomposition of this specific matrix?
It doesn't have to be this specific matrix. If it's some service exposed to the internet, it can be user supplied, in which case it turns into a backdoor.
Perhaps they just need a way to sneakily activate it? Or perhaps they have a target application which they know uses that. This method suggests a supply chain attack where a valid contributor to a library 'accidentally' includes this package and the hack carries out before anyone notices.
My guess is that it's crypto related but of course it could be anything.
I would assume it’s actually so they can allow it to spread before it gets activated. Then do something that affects the entire chain of package dependencies
A status code for (industrial/the-man) equipment? You could target specific environments by activating on obscure error codes that can be remotely triggered.
Aka If someone from the outside can make your equipment emit X internally, they can target X in some way.
There are "humanizer" scripts that these people like to use. This one is not the typical style I see in my online moderator adventures, which is usually "lowercase everything and remove all punctuation except periods", as if we are repelled by em-dash use and not the tortured prose.
I like the removal of a random definite article, to simulate an ESL writer and garner sympathy for using LLMs as a "tool to clean up posts". Heavens, they would never even think of using their Claude subscription to be a slop factory, that would cross a line.
Being new here doesn't mean I'm a bot. I'm not native and maybe my style looks for you like a bot, I won't try to argue with you. Just wanted to contribute
Zero-knowledge seems completely unnecessary. Surely the original image does not have any material content in it that is not made public by publishing a JPEG-compressed version.
Could this be simpler and more efficient without ZK?
Generally being succinct goes hand and hand with being zero knowledge.
The proof must be MUCH smaller than the whole computation or even the inputs (otherwise, just provide the uncompressed image!).
And the proof has to resist forgery.
So going for succinctness and at least computational soundness gets you to zero knowledge 'for free'.
Plus as the dead sibling comment notes: You may want disclosed modifications like a crop or redaction where the committed information remains private but you want to keep the proof.
It would be interesting if it could be made to work with arbitrary transform, such as redaction.
Imagine a photo with some blacked out rectangles, and a ZK proof that confirms it comes from an attested "real" photo + adding those rectangles, but no other modification.
Regardless of whether the target result(s) are ultimately correct, isn't it almost guaranteed that supporting infrastructure for surreals-in-lean is a real contribution? Is it a goal to make those polished/reusable, or more like throw-away harness, and just a stepping stone to the proof?
I'm a little tired from the project so not eager to jump back into it right away. But yes, I'd love for useful pieces to make their way into https://github.com/vihdzp/combinatorial-games. Violeta, who maintains CG, expressed interest in ultimately integrating the proof in some shape into the repo, but I think more work needs to be done to understand what makes it work.
You will find they were inspired by the NP-hard knapsack problem, and inspired a bunch of later research that led to RSA.
I think the tapestry of history would suggest the answer to the question "is math responsible for this invention" a lot more complicated than it appears. For lasers, Einstein proposed the idea based on purely theoretical physics, and it was made possible in 1960. Is that "theoretical math leading to the invention of lasers"? Surely he was at least relying on a lot of additional theoretical work for that. On the other hand, much theoretical that came out of Bell Labs were responses to needs for better vacuum tube technology, better amplifiers, etc., which were a deep collaboration between theory, practice, and tradesman with a strong intuition for how to build with various materials and at varying scales.
Python has always had a bytecode compiler that did some minor optimizations, since its inception in the 90's. The issue is that optimizations are very hard to do correctly in the compiler because Python is so dynamic. Any piece of code could suddenly redefine mytype.__add__() and so forth.
reply