Today a crazy quantum story just got wilder.
On March 31, the Google Quantum AI team published a landmark result on Shor's algorithm for elliptic curve cryptography. Technically, the paper was a bombshell: a dramatic 10x improvement over the state-of-the-art. As a stunt and wakeup call to the blockchain space, those optimisations were illustrated on secp256k1, the elliptic curve underlying Bitcoin and Ethereum signatures.
But perhaps the most striking part of the paper was sociological, not technical. Instead of following standard academic process, the optimisations were kept secret, hidden behind a zero-knowledge (ZK) proof. Google's accompanying blog post mentions they "engaged with the U.S. government". The ZK proof demonstrates the existence of algorithmic improvements without leaking details. Academic censorship with ZK, a historic first!
As a co-author of the Google paper I witnessed some of the context surrounding this censorship. To be honest, multiple aspects of that context don't sit well with me. As much as I believe the general public ought to know more, I am limited in my ability to whistleblow. Though let me be clear about one thing: the Google team's professionalism has been absolutely exemplary, and they deserve nothing but praise.
Censorship has a way of backfiring. The Streisand effect, where an attempt to bury something only draws more attention to it, is exactly what's unfolding today. First, Google's key optimisation has been rediscovered by the French. And in a thrilling turn of events, a collaborative Shor-at-home challenge just launched. The initiative, available at ecdsa[.]fail, breached a new Shor world record in a matter of hours.
Let's start with the rediscovery. Just two months after Google's paper, French quantum expert André Schrottenloher cracks the main secret optimisation. His paper, titled "Optimized Point Addition Circuits for Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithms", landed on the arXiv today. Big congrats to André, who beat several other nerdsnipped experts to it. In a blog post also published today, Craig Gidney, the world expert on Shor optimisations, revealed that he'd been sitting on this very optimisation for a whole year under censorship pressure.
Interestingly, André missed a handful of minor optimisations, both from Google's original publication and from improvements found since. It's plausible there's still plenty of juice left to squeeze out of Shor, and this is exactly what the ecdsa[.]fail challenge is about. The verifier program developed for the ZK proof does double duty, automatically filtering for valid submissions. Dozens of compounding small and micro improvements are rolling in. As of the time of writing there's an 8.4% improvement to Google's circuit, as measured by the product of logical qubit count and Toffoli gate count. Nice!
The nerdsnipping ran deeper than anyone expected. Over the last few weeks it became clear it extended well beyond André and other quantum experts. Behind the scenes, a small army of amateurs quietly got to work. Inspired by Karpathy-style autoresearch, they turned AI on Shor. Ironically, the verifier program for the ZK proof makes an ideal reward function for AIs. The barrier to entry for this modern style of research is refreshingly low, with several non-experts, even a teenager, finding nice optimisations. Get in touch if you'd like to join a Telegram group with fellow autoresearchers :)
Part 2: neutral atoms and qday
The story doesn't end with Google. On the same day Google went public, a stealthy startup called Oratomic published its own Shor paper in a coordinated release. It made a splash, ultimately becoming the most upvoted paper on scirate[.]com, a website ranking arXiv papers.
Oratomic's claim was wild. By building on Google's logical optimisations and applying custom physical optimisations for neutral atoms, they claimed just 10K physical qubits were sufficient to run Shor's algorithm on secp256k1. That number is mind-bogglingly low.
Knowing essentially nothing about neutral atoms when Oratomic's paper landed, I was intrigued and decided to learn more about the tech. I fell straight down the rabbit hole and spent a couple hundred hours on the topic. I got a little obsessed and watched every YouTube video I could find and spoke to a bunch of experts.
My conclusion? The tech is real, very real. Even Google recently decided to start a neutral atom lab, a notable pivot from their sole focus on superconducting qubits. If you care about qday, i.e. the day a quantum computer will break the first piece of cryptography in production, neutral atoms demand your attention. I shared some of my learnings on Shor and neutral atoms in a 30min talk at the ZKProof cryptography conference. You can find it on YouTube by searching "zkproof neutral atom".
Here's an interesting observation about this duo of breakthrough papers: neither Google nor Oratomic say a word about what their results mean for qday. No timelines. Zero. Nada. That is especially baffling given that the whole point of whitehat quantum cryptanalysis is to inform qday estimations and help the general public make good decisions.
So let me attempt to partially fill the silence, similarly to what Scott Aaronson did in his April 29 post. Given everything I know, including scary non-public information, I now put the odds of qday by 2032 at 50%. 10% by 2030.
Anecdotally, the US government has its own date: 2035. Originating at the NSA and later adopted by NIST, it's when branches of the US government will be disallowed from using quantum-vulnerable cryptography. In plain language: with hindsight, that date is a joke and should be discounted entirely. I don't see how NIST avoids being forced to pull it forward by years.
Part 3: post-quantum cryptography
There are good reasons to sound the alarm today, but please do not panic. Rushing carelessly towards immature post-quantum cryptography is a recipe for disaster. IMO a good target date for migration is 2029, roughly 3.5 years out. 2029 happens to be the date selected by Google, Cloudflare, and the Ethereum Foundation.
These days most of my time goes to safely migrating Ethereum towards post-quantum cryptography as part of the broader lean Ethereum effort. There's a lot to do. We need to rip out and replace BLS signatures at the consensus layer, KZG commitments at the data layer, and ECDSA signatures at the execution layer.
The plan to get there is compelling, and is based on hash-based cryptography. Within the Ethereum Foundation we've developed a Swiss army knife called leanVM (github[.]com/leanEthereum/leanVM) powered by the magic of hash-based SNARKs. Thanks to truly exceptional work by Emile, Thomas, and others, its performance is derisked. Regarding security, leanVM is a jewel, a minimal zkVM crafted for end-to-end formal verification and maximum security.
Want to help? There are two $1M initiatives. First, the Proximity Prize (proximityprize[.]org). Solve a long-standing mathematical conjecture in coding theory, improve hash-based SNARKs, and go home a millionaire. Second, the Poseidon Initiative (poseidon-initiative[.]info), offers $1M for breaking Poseidon, the SNARK-friendly hash function.
显示更多
While showbiz bickers over AI video continuity glitches and educators remain stuck debating AI-generated PPTs, World Models are quietly disrupting non-tech sectors, igniting a radical paradigm shift in clinical medicine and surgical simulation.
Why healthcare and not Hollywood?
Because Hollywood demands visual perfection, but healthcare mandates absolute physical causality.
Traditional medical AI could only act as a static periscope—pinpointing a lesion on an existing scan.
Yet disease is inherently dynamic. When a physician prescribes a treatment, they historically lacked a patient-specific, long-term window into the exact downstream changes after the patient ingests the drug.
Recent breakthroughs showcased at elite computing summits like ICCV have elevated medical AI from passive visual recognition to a predictive, generative "World Simulator" tailored for prognosis and treatment optimization.
In validated clinical applications, this technology leverages potent counterfactual reasoning.
Take transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for liver cancer and advanced radiotherapy as prime examples: before finalizing an intervention, a Medical World Model (MeWM) ingests a patient’s current CT imagery to simulate months of dynamic disease progression within its latent space.
It cross-aligns multimodal parameters to synthesize high-fidelity visual representations of post-treatment tumor trajectories. Simultaneously, its inverse dynamics model quantifies how varying embolic agents or drug cocktails shift long-term survival curves. Empirically, this "future-simulation" paradigm has propelled clinical decision success rates (F1-score) by 13%, cementing its role as an indispensable AI co-pilot.
Today, multimodal medical models are rapidly embedding into hospital HIS/EMR nervous systems, as specialized prognosis simulators push past theoretical boundaries into raw performance validation.
The ultimate utility of a World Model isn't coding text or animating fantasy; it is evolving into a rigorous, low-cost simulation infrastructure—serving as a high-stakes safeguard for human decision-making.
【The Grand Forecast】
The successful clinical deployment of Medical World Models proves their unique capacity to "simulate future outcomes before executing current actions." This technical paradigm—trading pure aesthetic appeal for rigid physical and biological causality—is sprawling beyond tech ecosystems at a breakneck speed.
Stripping away healthcare, autonomous driving, and media entertainment, which trial-and-error heavy traditional industry do you predict World Models will infiltrate and disrupt next?
Will it be macro-climate disaster modeling in modern agriculture, dynamic supply-chain evolution in urban planning, extreme stress-testing in deep-sea aerospace engineering, or an entirely unmapped frontier?
Drop your sharpest thesis and reasoning in the comments below. Let’s chart the hidden industrial landscape of the next generation of World Models!
显示更多
Mostly true. What matters is securing the long-term future of consciousness, both on Earth and other heavenly bodies.
We cannot just focus on Earth, because there are irreducible external (eg massive meteor) and internal (eg global nuclear war) cataclysmic risks.
The Moon is faster to make self-growing, but is more susceptible to problems on Earth. Mars will take longer to make self-growing, because it is so hard to reach, but is more secure from Earth disasters for that same reason.
Both the Moon and Mars should have self-growing civilizations. Making this happen is the prime directive of SpaceX.
显示更多
Former SpaceX astronaut Garrett Reisman reveals the single prism Elon Musk runs every major decision through
"He measures pretty much every major decision by whether or not it brings the day when we have a self-sustainable colony on Mars sooner or later"
"That's the prism by which he makes every single decision he makes"
"He's got an idea and he'll keep pushing, and he gives us aggressive timelines that we have to work to"
"We work really hard to try to meet them. It's hard when you're doing stuff that's this complicated to predict exactly how long it's going to take"
"We end up falling a little bit behind, but we do our best"
显示更多
0
0
13.4K
103.1K
20.3K
转发到社区