The actual technology was just a variant of Lempel-Ziv, and the claims about lossless compression were just hiding the entropy by not counting a huge dictionary off to the side. Even so, there were claims that this result "extended information theory" and the patterns found could be the basis of learning.
The presenter had climbed in their regional market, and gotten a puff piece in a business magazine, but obviously the grad students at UC Berkeley weren't buying it. The presenter's startup didn't go anywhere, but they have had a successful career, and are now a VP at Gartner.
I guess the lesson is that there's a network that runs on technical expertise and ability to deliver results, and a parallel network that runs on bullshit and the ability to convince people. There's a lot of money and power in the second network, and it intersects with respected, established institutions. Grant seems to be playing that game masterfully, and the publicity from being publicly attacked at a "Black Hat" conference plays into his hands beautifully. Maybe Gartner will be hiring?
I wonder what can be done to nuke these BS companies out of existence. Anyone has ideas?
You can do training sessions for people you want to advance or hold back. In both cases sessions would be meaningless and void of any real value, except that they assign attribute Foo to the group of people. Then you can say that only people with Foo can do Bar, moving those people forward in their career. Alternatively you can overcome some bureaucratic obstacle by claiming that you do Foo regularly, which is a requirement from some authority for some reason.
I don't really know how this kind of politics works, but this is how I tend to think about it.
My post isn’t a dig against consulting, it’s a dig against “Big Consulting” where it’s more about bluff, a big brand (to prey on the “nobody has been fired for choosing X”), lots of meetings & bullshit while the actual work gets outsourced to monkeys in third-world countries with atrocious working conditions.
I want to nuke “Big Consulting” out of existence to let real consulting take its place for people like you and me.
The moment the bank went public their valuation went down and months later the Spanish central governement had to inject 23 billion euros (of EU money) into the bank.
We know now that that Deloitte's report was based not on actual independently collected and analyzed information but on "possible future scenarios" outlaid by Bankia's executives.
In court, Deloitte's representatives argued that they really hadn't had access to the necessary information to produce the audit. So what did Deloitte's dozens of employees worked on for months? Why did they produce a report that couldn't possibly know if it was accurate?
Bankia, Abengoa, Livent, Standard Chartered, Carillion... the pattern is always the same: "we can make it go any way you want".
- the tentative review of a proforma version of accounting used for the IPO, which Deloitte did not sign but where heavily discussed and to which Deloitte have access.
- the formal audit of the financial statements, for which Deloitte did NOT give the ok (Francisco Celma, the responsible partner, did not sign), as it was not given all the information (but they did have items to work on, just not everything needed).
Rodrigo Rato, then Bankia’s CEO, pushed Celma to sign without having reviewed all info; when he refused, Rato went forward with the IPO nonetheless.
Also I think it is Celma in particular, and not Deloitte as a company, who is being sued (or is the one legally liable, irrespective of the suit; can’t really remember )
It sucks, but look at the competiton: they don't get data from drivers, don't launch and iterate. For example I'm in Eastern Europe and I don't know any other company that has training data for my country.
Also Andrew Karpathy improved the development framework a lot, I guess you looked at the autonomy day presentation. It was interesting (and shicking) to me that depth wasn't learned before from the cameras, I think it's crucial.
Anyways I understand your sentiment, that's partly why I still prefer owning Bitcoin.
Then there was the professor pushing their "Lego" model of network protocol development, whose example was encryption and compression blocks.
There's less money in academia, but just as much publicity.
> Utilizing multi-dimensional encryption technology, including time, music’s infinite variability, artificial intelligence, and most notably mathematical constancies to generate entangled key pairs, ...
I'm not even remotely qualified to speak about any of it but it certainly gives the feeling that they're selling "silicon snake oil". My bullshit detector hit 11 after reading the above.
Supposedly, Grant's discovery enables "the accurate prediction of prime numbers". I'm unable to find out just how many previously unknown prime numbers he has successfully predicted thus far, however. Anyone know?
Ignoring the reference to unrelated results about prime numbers, the main idea is that to check if a number is prime:
1) First check the remainder modulo 10, modulo 9 and modulo 24. This part is correct, but it's suspicious that they waste a few pages to prove it. Anyone with a minimal background will agree with this part explained in a line.
2) They make a multiplication table "Q-grid" of the number that are not multiple of 2 nor 3. The idea is that after discarding the numbers with the bad remainder module 24, the rest of the numbers are not multiple of 2 nor 3. Again, it's suspicious that they give a long explanation and the use of invented names like "Quasi-primes"
3) To test if N is prime, they try to find in this table build looking first at the numbers nearby the x~=sqrt(N) and y~=sqrt(N) so x * y ~= N. It's not clear how they lookup in the table.
Being very optimistic, this is essentially like searching for a divisor of N up to sqrt(N). [I'm not sure that their implementation is not worse.] This search up to sqrt(N) is one of the first trick you learn to test primality. The advantage of their method is that they reduce the search space modulo 24 and they get the result in sqrt(N)/3 steps. [I'm not sure that their implementation is not worse.] This is slightly better than using only the odd numbers to get the result in sqrt(N)/2 steps.
For big enough numbers to be used in cryptography, this sqrt(N) or sqrt(N)/2 or sqrt(N)/3 is complete rubbish compared to any modern serious method, it's not even funny, I understand the uproar.
> And because when we search for the prime factors of some semiprime number we need to remove the non-prime numbers from both axes of the Q-grid, like 25, 35, 49 etc., the problem will automatically reduce to simply locating the number in the Q-grid, with its horizontal and vertical projections on both axes being its prime factors.
I hope they are not trying to build the whole Q-grid. It uses more memory than a simple search. Also if they are keeping only the prime numbers, why all the discussion of using the remainder module 24. All big prime numbers have the correct remainder module 24.
> In fact, these two numbers, 2 and 3, contradict many of the primes properties such that some mathematicians consider them as sub-prime integers.
I never hear that.
Bad math joke: Did you notice that 2 is an odd prime number?
> First check the remainder modulo 10, modulo 9 and modulo 24.
This makes zero sense already. First, 9=3 x 3, so checking for 3 is sufficient. (Checking for 9 might be easier in decimal, but why the hell would you do cryptography in decimal?) Then there’s the 24=2 x 2 x 2 x 3. Again, why not just use 6, but even worse, there’s no new factor here that’s not already covered by 10 and 9.
(And as you mentioned, even if this works, much better primality Tests are readily available.)
(Off-topic: Is there a good way to indicate multiplication on HN? I can’t figure out how to escape asterisks, and Unicode symbols seem to be simply filtered out, which is a bit crazy in 2019.)
Also, they are using the last digit of the number, that I translated to "modulo 10".
Another reason for the translation is that the mathematical structure is more clear in "modulo 10, modulo 9 and modulo 24" than in the version "last digit, nines rule and modulo 24".
In a computer is much more efficient to use modulo that transforming the number to a string and then operating with the digits, so I hope they have an efficient implementation but it is not clear from the pdf.
It isn't. The test is the same in both cases.
The famous 19th century English poet Robert Browning was not a particularly worldly fellow and got it into his head that the word "twat" referred to a nun's headgear. Later he wrote a poem that needs a rhyme for bats in the context of religious folk arriving for prayer and he picked "twats", - then since he was an important English writer and this word was unfamiliar to them (or at least they had no citations for it) the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary asked him about it, and discovered his error. Oops. You're never going to make a mistake that'll be as famous as Browning's, so you're fine.
I also was thrown off by the word module. I said to myself, unless he is talking about modulo I have no idea what that is.
The Module Learning With Rounding (MLWR) and Module Learning With Errors (MLWE) problems are used for a couple of the round-two candidates in NIST's Post-Quantum cryptography contest.
Which makes it more confusing. Modules aren't first/second year university math.
Sheesh, citation needed. Doubt this paper would be allowed as a post on wikipedia.
- Generate primes. Practically, I understand that it's usually generating a number that's extremely likely to be prime. It sounds like they are using "not a multiple of 24" for this part (which is both obvious and obviously bad, for obvious reasons)
- Multiplex data with a sequence off of the original factorization, which is only as secure as the prime but slows down brute-force attacks. It sounds like they are using sampled waveforms of this-maybe-prime to AI-generated music (topical!) as the multiplexing sequence.
It basically sounds like cargo-cult mathematics - all the best mathematics are beautiful and use symmetry _ergo_ creating something with symmetry and beauty must be good mathematics.
How much does something like this cost to get made? This isn't exactly "I know a guy who has After Effects" level production.
You could probably cobble this video together for a few hundred bucks on Fiverr.
For comparison, my best animation is a gif with a moving arrow, something like the "Click here to begin" arrow of Windows 95, but much worse. In comparison these graphics are impressive. (On the other hand, when I see the math I'm impressed in the other direction.)
Perhaps that's what I'm seeing, yes
The conference is really playing into Time AIs game by censoring it. Underlying the story that this new technology is just too big and too groundbreaking for the industry to accept :-D
I wonder who they're targeting with this. Given the nature of the product and the high production value bullshit video, I guess they must be after either rich individuals or incompetent upper management.
See also: http://primes.utm.edu/notes/crackpot.html
Don't him too much credit. He deserves none.
Edit: and a paper critiquing the math was published July 2019: https://unprovable.github.io/drafts/Prime_Generation_For_Bre...
"Brains are soul localizing devices." <--- The Deepster Chopra.
Guess scaling is down the track for this "business"
Here's a video of Robert Grant giving an introduction to his Time AI nonsense from their party the night before:
JP Aumasson live tweeted their presentation at Blackhat:
The true failure happened when Blackhat decided it was ok to accept money from a con man.
I went to a maker space in the UK that occasionally held talks - one day they had a talk by some "Alkaline water" machine manufacturer (not the manufacturer, but one of the pyramid scheme dupes). Like many of these, it was a random mix of diverse actual (irrelevant) science, pseudoscience bullshit, conspiracy theory (as to why this wasn't e.g. used in medicine), appeal to authority and outright fraud, gish-galloped together into one giant mess. The diversity of the actual science means that there is _nobody_ who can be an expert in all areas and so refuting can be waved away.
Many of the otherwise practically intelligent people (although a wide mix came to this space) apparently couldn't tell or didn't care. Several people actually bought machines from them.
I suppose all of this is (in these contexts) is preying on the tendency for competent scientists to automatically question their own assumptions, but even when they do most of the time it just feeds their "controversy" argument using people who would never have bought it anyway.
Con-artists continue to thrive for a reason; even with the canniest/most suspicious people there's an arbitrage on how long they can survive in one place before moving onto the next target.
No, you just overthought it. Consider Diogenes' refutation of Zeno's motion paradoxes. Did he invent calculus? No, he stood up and walked around.
If somebody tries to sell you a magical medicine water alkalizer machine, just throw alkaseltzer tablets at their face until they fuck off. That's all the refutation that's needed. A technical 'rigorous' refutation wouldn't be understood by the rubes such con men target anyway.
If you don't want to pay for Black Hat, you don't have to; one of the things Black Hat's registration price covers is professional recording, and the talks are published on Youtube in a few months.
But usually, it's just a 30 minute ad that's all fluff. I try to avoid them, but sometimes I volunteer at conferences and get stuck managing a sponsored talk track, and man is it depressing.
The rest of society is not so courageous.
You only need to look at various management consultants, new age healers, and religion to find more people who obviously know nothing about how the world actually is, but are never held to account.
that part makes you sound a bit crank-ish... could you explain this a bit more? what's happening in 2024?
I'm fine as it is, thank you.
Does anyone have an insight as to what their endgame is, and where their funding is coming from?
> "Strathspey Crown is a visionary portfolio of transformational businesses, focused on the most complex sectors of healthcare, energy, and technology."
This seems to be the parent company, check out some of the goofy things they claim to been involved in. Quotes like "changing the paradigm", "the internet of wellbeing", "where little things make a big difference". It's cookie cutter generic websites for every one of them, most of the time I can't work out what their product is supposed to be or what they're claiming to be working on.
When your ‘director of cryptography’ has this in his bio, surely something’s up:
> dedicated the last fifteen years to decrypting mathematical codes in Shakespeare’s writings that have revealed unknown sacred geometry hidden in the pyramids of Giza.
Another of their companies sells patches that relieves pain through the magic of quantum physics. Something about the energies of healing substances that unlock a pain relieving carrier wave.
I've never heard this one; brilliantly funny!!
I would probably argue for a more expansive definition. If you have to listen really, really hard to hear the enhancement piece of equipment gives then it's a waste of time and money.
But hell, I grew up listening to music recorded onto a C90 through a $40 walkman.
I remember a thread on avsforum.com where one individual has claimed he could hear the difference between cheap and expensive cables. Someone on the forum offered to travel to his house, do a double blind test, and post the results. The individual agreed, and the test was performed. The results of 20 tests were something like 12/8, where 12 was the number of times he mistook the $5 cable for the $900 one.
Well, that was kind of expected, however the most interesting part was that despite this clear evidence, the individual still refused to change his mind about importance of the "high quality" cables. It was a bizarre and eye opening experience for me to follow that development.
Some other people, however, see it as 8/20 you can hear the inferior product, they think that they are not peasants to get 8/20 feeling of inferior product, so shut up and take my money, cause $900 cable will guarantee 0/20 of hearing bad cable, totally worth it. nuff said
And maybe, if you don't use active speakers, the Amplifier makes a difference.
Everything else is snake oil, not just the cables. Separate CD transports, fancy DACs, "HD" formats, all snake oil.
Just working on different directions.
I clicked around and some of them even don't exist outside of strathspeycrown.
Several of them have just plain placeholder sites.
Picking quotes is interesting, I think, as it gives a sense of the author and what the author values.
Including Mr. Apollo
After having a vision of the Universe as a fractal hologram at the age of 15, he extensively studied a wide variety of branches in theoretical astrophysics, completing major research papers on the potential interface between consciousness and the physics of space-time by the time he graduated High School.
I'm going to sample a couple of his 27 albums. The cover art alone is a thing to behold.
EDIT - I'm beginning to think we've got this all wrong.
It's not a scam - it's a cult.
What is fascinating is that the partner organization are always referencing other organization in the same "network", so it looks impressive but it is always the same 10-15 people.
For example compare the team https://hiup.org/people/ with https://resonance.is/resonance-academy-faculty/ which is mostly the team of the Robert grant's company https://torustech.com/team/
And going down the rabbit hole, the Time AI trailer has some visual similarity to :
A 2016 documentary pushed by Resonance Academy and Unify about all people being connected, which is also the mantra of torus tech (because obviously they are the same people...)
And if you look at the (paid) delegate program of the resonance academy (https://academy.resonance.is/), in the list of module down the page, you'll find Robert Grant and Adam Apollo.
Here is the module from Robert Grant:
>This course attempts to unlock the mysteries of science and esoterica from a wholistic perspective, combining history and ancient sites, ageless symbology, polymathic philosophy, biology, musical theory and alchemy.
>We also explore the practical application of these mathematical discoveries and how they can be utilized along with hertz EMGR (Electro-Magneto-Gravito-Radiativity) to better understand time, the Inverse Square Law, biology, DNA genotypic and phenotypic expression, vacuum energy and matter transmutation.
So it is all circular referencing, but honestly this is kinda fascinating.
Want to find out more about the Extraterrestrial Species who populate this Galaxy, learn how to make Contact, and explore the depth of your own personal relationship with the Stars?
We're still populating all the areas of this site with amazing content, but get on our list to be notified about our upcoming deep dives and contact experiences.
I mean, this doesn't quite say "come and talk to aliens" but "learn how to make Contact" does sound like promising something currently impossible.
> "The firm's subsidiaries and investors include board certified physician specialists across key medical specialties, including plastic surgery, ophthalmology, dermatology, dentistry and orthopedics. Strathspey Crown is focused on working with physician investors to bring to market innovative technologies and services in the self-pay sector of the lifestyle healthcare market."
Crown sterling = Stratton Oakmont = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPVMfGzXZP8
Stratton's logo is a lion. Crown Sterlings logo is a lion. The style of presentation is the same: start with axioms that are hard to argue with. Use it to build trust, then when they're listening segway into the real bs.
Building trust = https://youtu.be/dCANT0nG3bY?t=36
"First we pitch them disney, at & T, ... blue chip stocks exclusively. companies these people know. once we've suckered them in we unload the dog shite. pink sheets, the penny stocks, where we make the money."
They're doing the same thing but with encryption. Ofc, no one understands encryption directly so they talk abstractly about entropy and appeal to authority. After that comes the bs. The only part that seems missing from this is what they're shilling for and they're already gathering emails.
Oops. I was going to say they missed the crucial ingredient which is to create FOMO -- or fear of missing out. But they got that right too by implying existing encryption was somehow flawed or broken. People would have to sign up or risk their 'data liberty.' Nicely done.
I'll be surprised if this isn't to hype a blockchain-related project. IOTA 2.0.
I don't know precisely what happened to change this from comedy to controversy, but it definitely started with JP Aumasson's livetweet of the presentation going viral. So I guess I blame twitter.
... it says on the website and then it links on to a website which offers energy derived from vacuum:
Energy extracted directly from the vacuum. Nothing to burn, nothing to consume, nothing to destroy. No fumes, no toxins, no limitations. Nothing short of a paradigm shift which will alter the course of human kind forever.
Is it one of those websites that is really marketing for a new sci-fi show?
So, it is nothing. Shieeet I wish I could sell nothing to people for money.
That's hilarious, I'd swear I've heard that on Star Trek Next Generation an age ago!
>Time circuits on, Flux Capacitor ... fluxing, Engine running All right.
Outright scams are pretty rare but I've come across them a couple of times in the last decade, it always amazes me that investors would even begin to consider them.
It is pretty doubtful that anybody will remember this incident in a month when they pitch it to a non-technical crowd, worst case for them is using a slightly different name to avoid superficial search engine due diligence.
At some point, you don't know if they are scammers or if they have deluded themselves so hard they believe it.
That just seems ripe for abuse like this. I'm surprised this hasn't happened before.
Do you think all the other products they pitch there live up to the promises made? This is just a bit extreme in its wording, so it's causing attention.
There's plenty of boring, possibly snakeoil security products that get peddled every year. Usually they must have some foundation in reality to be able to pay Blackhat.
Most bad or boring presentations are not called out publicly on several media.
We have a pretty strong cryptography program going on at Black Hat. I think we might be the best industry offensive crypto conference at this point.
Well, it's not "quite a different specialty" in the same sense that zoology is quite a different specialty from what you would expect at Black Hat. There's some overlap between cryptography and Black Hat.
That's Robert Grant's personal website. Check it out. It's hilarious.
He has multiple publications in unified mathematics and physics related to his discoveries of quasi-prime numbers (a new classification for prime numbers), the world’s first predictive algorithm determining infinite prime numbers, and a unification wave-based theory connecting and correlating fundamental mathematical constants such as Pi, Euler, Alpha, Gamma and Phi.
This is his publications page:
There is one preprint on arxiv and the rest seem to be self-hosted. So "multiple publications" seems to mean "stuff I put on the internet". The titles of the articles are also very hard to take seriously. "Four-Fold Mirror-Symmetry Inherent to the Icositetragon Distribution of Numbers" sounds like something that should be submitted to "The Journal of the Numerology Society" (A. Crowley ed.) and "Unified Mathematics, Geometry and Music" is basically a collection of occult diagrams.
Also: typeset in MS Word.
I can only assume it refers to this:
Which is just an $8K six day seminar for college presidents who have no experience. But since he went 8 times, I guess that makes him a "Harvard Man".
So he was in the position for... one month? Am I reading that correctly?
PR when he was appointed in 2010:
Clearly the guy made a fortune from Botox, knows how to leverage that success and build an organization around buzzwords that attract investor money.
To be fair, is that any worse than Silicon Valley VC?
Most people can't. At this point I've basically given up on trying to correct people that call TEDx talks TED talks.
If it's a scam, I want to see it for myself.
"Alan [...] dedicated the last fifteen years to decrypting mathematical codes in Shakespeare’s writings that have revealed unknown sacred geometry hidden in the pyramids of Giza."
i don't think anyone will invest so much time into such a bungled attempt of con-artistry, so this does look more like a (costly) hoax.
maybe it is intended to discredit certain players in SecOps, Sokal-affair-style ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair ).
Depending on the purpose, this might need more attention.
Also look at his papers. He likes to draw a lot instead of doing math.
If such a law were enacted, this product might be called Fucked Up Encryption. I say that because the first law of encryption is that you don't roll it yourself. You can build things that use known encryption in non-standard ways, and even that can lead to things that were unexpected - like side channel attacks.
The whole pyramids thing is hilarious...I can't remember who coined the term, but "pyramidiots" is my favorite.
... I can't imagine this being serious
They paid to speak, so why not leave it at that. In many ways the guy hacked Blackhat with a few thousand dollars, which is kinda noteworthy.
This guy certainly gets all the attention he wanted by Blackhat removing the video.