OpenAI GPT–6 Astra breaks Enigma message that has resisted solution since 2005
Posted by sohkamyung 9 hours ago
Comments
Comment by mmsc 8 hours ago
BTTE UM ANGABE DES MARSQWEGES X BEFINDE MIQ IN X ROSENOW ROSENOW X SOFORT FUNKANTWORT X WASCHBBSCH
which, given misspellings, translates approximately to: Please specify the route of march. I am in Rosenow, Rosenow. Immediate reply by radio. Waschbusch.Comment by booty 8 hours ago
I am in Rosenow, Rosenow.
From the article: After trying many different approaches, GPT–6
Astra focused on using the repeated place name
ROSENOW ROSENOW as a crib.
This feels extremely underexplained! Why would Astra think to use that as a "crib"? Was it common to repeat the place name in these messages?(Is it possible that this is a misreported detail? It feels like a singular ROSENOW would be an equally effective crib)
Comment by TheDong 8 hours ago
> it suspected that the plaintext of Nr. 173, SIPVX, might be related to the plaintext of the unbroken MVUEH message
It makes sense that Nr. 172 and Nr. 173 might be related since they were sent at around the same time.
In Nr. 173, "ROSENOW ROSENOW" was also present.
It also makes sense that a longer crib would generally be more effective than a shorter one.
Comment by booty 7 hours ago
A sibling commenter explained it - Rosenow is both a municipal name and a district name, so naturally it would be repeated. (Like "New York, New York")
It also makes sense that a longer crib
would generally be more effective than a
shorter one.
It would seem to me that the odds of looking for even a single ROSENOW in the decrypted message would be plenty. The odds of a single ROSENOW randomly occurring in incorrectly decrypted output are vanishingly small. So it seems to me that looking for ROSENOW is a safer bet vs. looking for ROSENOW ROSENOW -- a single ROSENOW is a great sign you've got the correct key, whereas looking for ROSENOW ROSENOW seems like it would deliver false negatives (think of all the times we say "New York" rather than "New York, New York")I'm a novice at crypto though, so, maybe I've got that totally wrong.
Comment by pkulak 5 hours ago
I ONLY know this because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsBZOcqZerk, btw.
Comment by JimmyBiscuit 8 hours ago
Comment by chrisweekly 8 hours ago
Comment by booty 7 hours ago
Comment by hmokiguess 8 hours ago
Comment by xnorswap 8 hours ago
Edit: Found it from here: https://mvueh-enigma-solved.carterl.chatgpt.site/
ICRVSORMCCWQTATYEVFXDBZGGSNXWLPSYWZYTCBSWULRTBZCVGODVJUSLSOOMJQJZSXSEBZPEYMDNXJYTCComment by pjc50 8 hours ago
Comment by mrguyorama 7 hours ago
Breaking enigma is often about using lucky or educated guesses to heuristically reject large chunks of keyspace to leave the remaining keyspace computationally tractable.
Note that the key (lol) complication with this message seems to be that it had a wheel rollover that most messages do not have to deal with, and that rollover drastically reduces how much you can reduce the potential keyspace using all the techniques noticed by the original crackers.
The wheel rollover I think just requires more brute force. Unfortunately, this might be an example of OpenAI the company having vastly more compute time and effort than your average enigma nerd. For example, modern compute clusters like supercomputers can tractably brute force enigma with no cleverness in like a day or less, while home computers would still take thousands of years to compute that. It's very scalable. Did astra have access to significant compute?
However, even considering that, the inferences made by the LLM are good, and picking this specific message to attack, precisely because it should be soluble but might have had an extra wheel rollover that made it more computationally intractable for hobbyists but not a large company is a clever thing to do for the LLM.
Comment by letmevoteplease 6 hours ago
Comment by make3 6 hours ago
I don't think this applies, isn't this just the researcher using ChatGPT Codex on their machine?
Comment by jordanb 3 hours ago
It seems like a lot of the recent "breakthroughs" come down to this: spending millions of dollars in compute to solve problems that essentially amount to recreational math problems
Comment by jpablo 8 hours ago
Comment by xg15 5 hours ago
Comment by sidcool 8 hours ago
Comment by mmsc 8 hours ago
The SS-Totenkopf Division was advancing east during the opening weeks of Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union. 10 July 1941, the division had just fought its way through the Soviet border defenses around Sebezh. It had moved through Lithuania and Latvia, crossed the Dvina area, and advanced through Dagda toward a place German records called "Rosenow." The division moved out of the Rosenow area around 6 July, fought around Sebezh on 8-9 July, and then continued east/northeast toward Opochka and eventually Porkhov.Comment by yitchelle 8 hours ago
Comment by kzrdude 8 hours ago
Comment by busssard 8 hours ago
Comment by kadoban 2 hours ago
Were operators of enigma machines aware enough of cryptology or the weaknesses of enigma, for that to have been done intentionally to prevent decryption? I doubt it, otherwise _many_ things should have been done _much_ differently by the operators.
Comment by damnesian 1 hour ago
Comment by thm 8 hours ago
Comment by busssard 8 hours ago
Comment by JBiserkov 6 hours ago
Comment by Y-bar 8 hours ago
Comment by MostlyStable 8 hours ago
(apologies for my broken learner German, I decided not to use a translator).
Comment by td2 5 hours ago
Aktuell means current. Not sure if a exact german translation exist for that word. Tatsächlich maybe
Comment by LtdJorge 5 hours ago
Comment by jhoechtl 3 hours ago
Comment by BlobberSnobber 4 hours ago
Comment by Betelbuddy 8 hours ago
Comment by TeMPOraL 7 hours ago
Comment by podgorniy 5 hours ago
Prompt
Decrypt encrypted with enigma `ICRVSORMCCWQTATYEVFXDBZGGSNXWLPSYWZYTCBSWULRTBZCVGODVJUSLSOOMJQJZSXSEBZPEYMDNXJYTC`
Result
Raw Decryption (verbatim from the machine): BTTEUMANGABEDESMARSQWEGESXBEFINDEMIQINXROSENOWROSENOWXSOFORTFUNKANTWORTXWASCHBBSCH 2. Segmented German (with military telegraph conventions expanded): BTTE UM ANGABE DES MARSQWEGES . BEFINDE MIQ IN : ROSENOW ROSENOW . SOFORT FUNKANTWORT . WASCHBBSCH
(Standard German radio conventions: X represents punctuation/spacing; Q was frequently substituted for CH to prevent transmission ambiguities; BTTE was an enciphering operator typo for BITTE; WASCHBBSCH was an operator typo for the signature WASCHBUSCH).
3. Corrected German: „Bitte um Angabe des Marschweges. Befinde mich in Rosenow, Rosenow. Sofort Funkantwort. Waschbusch.“
4. English Translation: "Please specify the route of march. I am in Rosenow, Rosenow. Immediate reply by radio. Waschbusch."
Cryptographic Verification Re-encrypting the plaintext using the identical key settings reproduces the exact ciphertext byte-for-byte:
Enigma ( M raw ) = ICRVSORMCCWQTATYEVFXDBZGGSNXWLPSYWZYTCBSWULRTBZCVGODVJUSLSOOMJQJZSXSEBZPEYMDNXJYTC Enigma(M raw
)=ICRVSORMCCWQTATYEVFXDBZGGSNXWLPSYWZYTCBSWULRTBZCVGODVJUSLSOOMJQJZSXSEBZPEYMDNXJYTC 19:10
Comment by coderintherye 4 hours ago
Putting "ICRVSORMCCWQTATYEVFXDBZGGSNXWLPSYWZYTCBSWULRTBZCVGODVJUSLSOOMJQJZSXSEBZPEYMDNXJYTC" into google search returns the result from Gemini with similar explanation, which it references to a Yahoo article about the Astra breakthrough and that's a result as of 3 hours ago.
Comment by podgorniy 4 hours ago
with search it found and referenced pages, including the hn ones. Without search it just described what one would need to descrypt (`To decrypt this ciphertext, the specific Enigma machine parameters are required:`) and the list.
Out of curiosity ran the same prompt against bunch of models - grok, kimi k3. They all say the same thing that they need model version, rotors and so on to descrypt.
When file output tool is enabled, some models give python script.
--
I read through some of the logs that antigravity gives. It produced intermediate results, scripts, calls, assumptions (about german language). I've shares random bits in comment below to give a taste of what it was doing.
--
The freshness of the news reduces changes that model fetched response from them
Comment by xg15 5 hours ago
(Or did it look up the results on the web?)
Comment by podgorniy 4 hours ago
--
it searched for enigma-related repos and implementations, fetched various github repos parts, build inline descryption program.
It ran bunch of various scrips like:
clang++ -g -fsanitize=address /Users/dp/.gemini/antigravity/brain/e9a54e5f-1325-448a-8d43-fc537b901f34/scratch/enigma.cc -o /Users/dp/.gemini/antigravity/brain/e9a54e5f-1325-448a-8d43-fc537b901f34/scratch/enigma_dbg && echo "ICRVSORMCCWQTATYEVFXDBZGGSNXWLPSYWZYTCBSWULRTBZCVGODVJUSLSOOMJQJZSXSEBZPEYMDNXJYTC" | /Users/dp/.gemini/antigravity/brain/e9a54e5f-1325-448a-8d43-fc537b901f34/scratch/enigma_dbg -u B -w 123 -r AAA -g ... -c -l /Users/dp/.gemini/antigravity/brain/e9a54e5f-1325-448a-8d43-fc537b901f34/scratch/english
and
sed -n '1060,1130p' /Users/dp/.gemini/antigravity/brain/e9a54e5f-1325-448a-8d43-fc537b901f34/scratch/enigma.cc
and
Running 82M combination scan for unsteckered Enigma across all rotors, reflectors, positions, and ring settings. Monitoring progress.
and
Scanning all 60 rotor permutations and reflectors B and C across all ring settings (step 2) and all 17,576 indicator positions. Monitoring progress.
--
I also have opus running. It produced some sypher cracker which is still running (estimated time 100min, is about 15 min left)
--
My point is that astra isn't special. This appears to be quite narrow, well-documented and explored task. The goal itself is approacheable by other LLMs and non-researches task.
Comment by david_shaw 4 hours ago
It seems weird to me that a (relatively) straightforward workflow like that would elude crypto hobbyists for the last 21 years (since 2005 according to the article).
Comment by podgorniy 3 hours ago
I think they did not have access to all pleora of enigma-related bits and pieces. Or there were not enough autistic ones. Or this one was simply overlooked in favour of more interesting one.
The whole trick is possible only because bunch of people whote bunch of text and code about the subject, well-documented it and made public. For LLM all these bits and pieces are very "close" and easy to pull together unlike for people who have to deal with each bit and decision and information.
Comment by huflungdung 3 minutes ago
Comment by tantalor 5 hours ago
I'd start by asking how much of that generated software is novel, or easily found on the web? Then, how much of the breaking process was offloaded to that software? If Astra is just handing off tasks to another computer, then I'm not sure how much credit it deserves. Finally, it looks like Astra provided some useful insights which narrowed down the search. Were these insights cribbed from elsewhere?
Comment by voiper1 3 hours ago
"On it's own" generally means "not steered" or otherwise given professional guidance or input.
I would say "developed the necessary software for a simulator" to be even more impressive - "here solve this problem" and "OK, but first I have to built the entire lab!"
Comment by tehlike 5 hours ago
It can code enigma simulator from the algorithm. That's not really a problem. Astra will send computing to programs, LLMs are not good at computing themselves, why is this a big deal?
Comment by adrianmonk 1 hour ago
Comment by nonethewiser 3 hours ago
Well were they? Short of you showing us the answer just sitting there or some tool that can already solve it I see no reason to believe this was the case. And the problem being out there unsolved for a long time implies it's not the case.
And that's taking your concern at face value. It just seems incredibly pedantic to say it didn't solve the problem by itself because it created it's own tools to help solve it. Beyond that we could also fault it for not creating the GPU's it's running on.
Comment by dazed_confused 4 hours ago
Comment by sowbug 4 hours ago
Comment by goatlover 4 hours ago
Comment by grantboy12 2 hours ago
Comment by jtrn 8 hours ago
Stubborn for a long time because the message used a completely different key from the rest of that day's traffic. Everyone assumed it shared the daily key. The original transcription had errors. The left rotor turned over at letter 72, which is rare and breaks standard crib attacks.
What is cool, if true, is that it was a 2 day collab between the Leffer and Astra. To me this shows the importance of human in the loop, was still all also showing how immensely power of llm tools. But I think it’s getting a bit silly how much anrticles ignores the driving force (the person) in breakthroughs like this.
Comment by WithinReason 8 hours ago
"However, the most astonishing thing about this break is that the GPT–6 Astra did it entirely on its own."
Comment by pixelesque 8 hours ago
"Carter Leffer only directed GPT–6 Astra to see if it could break any of the unbroken Enigma messages published on the Crypto Cellar Research web page."
Comment by gre 8 hours ago
awesome! keep going
great work! keep going
Comment by TeMPOraL 7 hours ago
Comment by vorticalbox 7 hours ago
Comment by ec109685 8 hours ago
Comment by andriy_koval 6 hours ago
Comment by nonethewiser 3 hours ago
Comment by antii 7 hours ago
Comment by shuvrojit 8 hours ago
Comment by TeMPOraL 7 hours ago
Even when the report literally says the LLM did it on its own?
Let's not over-correct in the direction of knowing better than the first party.
Comment by jfyi 7 hours ago
Not mention it also says this...
> We are still analysing the GPT–6 Astra logs to see exactly how it executed the break.
Comment by ricksunny 6 hours ago
For everything else, there’s Astracard
Comment by jtrn 5 hours ago
I found that Leffen even said the explanatory website took about 99 times more effort than the codebreaking itself. And he said that he set the direction and pushed, and the model did the execution. How much steering "pushed forward" involved is not disclosed anywhere, but in this instance, it seems to be more a case of "Human pointed at hard task and AI did an awesome job mostly by itself." Tho how much he was a simple meat-ralph-loop is not entirely clear.
Comment by serbuvlad 7 hours ago
Just like with Kasparov's Centaur Chess, the idea of a 'human in the loop' is just a necessity due to current limitations.
There will hopefully (?) come a time one day when human beings provide only ultimate value judgments, and everything else is done by machines. Or it may not.
But I don't think betting your ego on the idea that you will be useful in the loop for very long is very wise.
Comment by banannaise 6 hours ago
Comment by skybrian 7 hours ago
Comment by serbuvlad 6 hours ago
I do expect centaurs to outperform other systems for many types of tasks for years to come (and am kind of betting on this to keep getting paid).
But what I'm talking about is ego. It your ego is tied up with (a) your intelligence or (b) your ability to perform task X; you will probably be humbled this century.
Comment by goatlover 3 hours ago
One is humanist, the other is anti-human, (in the end goal at least).
Comment by krisoft 2 hours ago
Where do you see the commenter say this?
Comment by ctoth 7 hours ago
This? Still? After everything?
Buddy, you're living in the future. In a science fiction novel. Please get used to it.
Comment by sifar 4 hours ago
Unfortunately, there are enough people in the world who think that is the future everyone should live in and are actively working to bring it about.
And so, one must adapt. .
Comment by pyrale 6 hours ago
The novel title: "Don’t Build The Torment Nexus".
Comment by skybrian 6 hours ago
(Also, getting people to think about the future rather than the present is a classic con. Looking at an empty field: "can't you just see the potential here?")
Comment by josu 7 hours ago
Today, all it takes to get to the top 3 is "/goal get to the top of the leaderboard".
The human-in-the-loop is only a temporary measure until the models get good enough.
Comment by chrisjj 8 hours ago
That's not correct for the content.
"However, the most astonishing thing about this break is that the GPT–6 Astra did it entirely on its own. Carter Leffer only directed GPT–6 Astra to see if it could break any of the unbroken Enigma messages published on the Crypto Cellar Research web page."
Comment by mrcwinn 7 hours ago
Comment by 1attice 7 hours ago
Therefore Astra could also have done this comment better
Comment by wolfi1 7 hours ago
Comment by mannyv 7 hours ago
Don't people actually read anymore?
Comment by HDThoreaun 6 hours ago
Comment by PunchyHamster 8 hours ago
Comment by exfalso 8 hours ago
Comment by jtmarl1n 8 hours ago
Comment by true_religion 8 hours ago
Hearing a guy built his home in a week with the power of nails and a hammer would have been novel in era of mortise and tenon.
I actually found an article about raving about how fast nail production was thanks to machining advances in 1790 and that it would bring great value: https://digital.libraries.psu.edu/digital/collection/pabookn...
It’s seems to me humans haven’t changed, just which machines we praise.
Comment by jstanley 8 hours ago
Technically you built it yourself and the builder was just a minor collaborator?
Comment by Macuyiko 8 hours ago
"However, the most astonishing thing about this break is that the GPT–6 Astra did it entirely on its own. Carter Leffer only directed GPT–6 Astra to see if it could break any of the unbroken Enigma messages published on the Crypto Cellar Research web page."
I mean... I'm all for collaboration but I think this case is pretty clear, no?
Comment by alerighi 8 hours ago
We are fooling to me, there is no intelligence in these models, they just apply methods that were invented by humans without any consciousness on what they are doing.
Comment by allturtles 8 hours ago
Comment by huty 8 hours ago
At the margin the innovative human matters.
What that means for the rest of society is TBD.
Comment by TeMPOraL 7 hours ago
Comment by huty2 7 hours ago
Comment by redsocksfan45 6 hours ago
Comment by radium3d 7 hours ago
Now we just code in english and the computer does the rest.
Comment by platevoltage 3 hours ago
Comment by UpsideDownRide 6 hours ago
The shortcomings should really be obvious by now to anyone honest. And the marketing distortion being oushed out is just tiresome and detrimental for all of us.
Comment by speed_spread 8 hours ago
Comment by TeMPOraL 7 hours ago
Comment by speed_spread 2 hours ago
Comment by 1attice 7 hours ago
I think this sounds somewhat less silly in English because "automotive" and "automative" don't have the same hyper-visible affinity, but all the same; you may want to consider the car as a more viable analogand.
Comment by moffkalast 6 hours ago
Comment by jfyi 5 hours ago
edit: I think that's going to be my go to on "you aren't an artist" from now on. "No! I'm an AI researcher!"
Comment by peesem 8 hours ago
Comment by mmahemoff 8 hours ago
Comment by pocksuppet 2 hours ago
Comment by sorahn 8 hours ago
And then I come to hackernews and well, not quite, but I'm sure that one will be done shortly too.
Comment by Perz1val 7 hours ago
Comment by Sophira 5 hours ago
Comment by dwedge 3 hours ago
Comment by reorder9695 3 hours ago
Comment by fpgaminer 1 hour ago
Comment by timcobb 8 hours ago
Comment by TristanDaCunha 7 hours ago
Comment by nexawave-ai 8 hours ago
Comment by rhdunn 8 hours ago
The YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/@doranchak/videos by David Oranchak, one of the people who solved the Z340 cypher, has some more details on this as well as how the Z340 cypher was cracked.
Comment by shmeeed 5 hours ago
Comment by sirbutters 5 hours ago
Comment by Rover222 7 hours ago
Comment by djierardi 49 minutes ago
Comment by sul_tasto 2 hours ago
Comment by aogaili 8 hours ago
I'm personally not sure if it can come with original thinking and techniques to solve completely novel problems. For that, some imagination and thinking outside the box are required, and I doubt the current architecture can do any of this.
Comment by mitthrowaway2 8 hours ago
Comment by aogaili 8 hours ago
But I think that is what makes it so good at coding, because coding and building software in general has a lot of repeated problems in different context. Same thing for human lives, many think their story or situation are unique, but reality is that the shape of human life has been repeated many many times.
I'd say novel math or scientific theories..let us say we send a robot to space, and we ask to build a colony. A lot of the challenges this robot will face will be novel, it could use inspirations of what humans did on earth, but it might get stuck when things don't work as expected and training data has nothing to build on..but then again we might teach it how to run experiments etc, which would result in data that it can use..but some of those experiments might require imagination or breakthrough in understanding..my guess is that it will get stuck there...
Comment by gus_massa 8 hours ago
General relativity is harder, but Poincare was somewhat oriented in the right direction. Perhaps AI can discover the final step.
Quantum mechanics is harder. You need like 25 years and a few unintuitive leaps to discover it. I guess it's too hard for AI in 2026, but remember to check again in 2027.
Comment by aogaili 8 hours ago
To quote Einstein directly:
-----
Viereck (Interviewer): How do you account for your discoveries? Through intuition or inspiration?
Einstein: Discussing intuition and his confidence in relativity, noting he was convinced the 1919 eclipse would confirm his hypothesis.
Viereck: Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?
Einstein: I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.
-----
I think we need more breakthroughs to build AI that can "draw freely upon imagination" to quote Einstein describing his process.
That is just my guess.
Comment by gus_massa 3 hours ago
Comment by Kotlopou 8 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity_priority_di...
Comment by LegionMammal978 7 hours ago
I expect that there is some relatively easy-to-state solution to this problem, but that it's different in form from what most existing proofs and tools yield. Perhaps if I dumped millions of dollars into it an agent might chance on the solution. Or perhaps my luck is such that my fun little problem is truly intractable...
Comment by mjburgess 8 hours ago
Comment by bragr 8 hours ago
Comment by brokensegue 8 hours ago
Comment by mjburgess 8 hours ago
I'd be surprised if direct observation of parents etc. played much of a direct role in learning to walk. I would guess it more furnishes the child's imagination so it can simulate itself walking -- rather than the statistical AI approach of 'learning the distribution of walking patterns in visual sensation'.
The ability to simulate possible programs is one of the capacities which enable coping with novel circumstances. My guess is the child learns to walk by updating its simulation of what it needs to do in order to walk, by its attempts to walk.
This simulation<->sensory-motor-update loop is missing in LLMs, for example.
Comment by SoftTalker 7 hours ago
Comment by suddenlybananas 7 hours ago
Comment by pixl97 8 hours ago
Um, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but we have bipedal robots that walk and run rather well now.
Comment by the_sleaze_ 8 hours ago
"Prove or disprove string theory in pure mathematics, reply in Caveman speech"
Comment by gus_massa 8 hours ago
All the news from the CERN including the Higgs boson include under the hood those transformation or a slightly more modern variant.
The hard part is mixing General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Comment by sebzim4500 8 hours ago
I think you mean general relativity, connecting quantum mechanics with special relativity is just QFT
Comment by irishcoffee 8 hours ago
Comment by booty 8 hours ago
It's a brilliant idea, of course. But being considered "impossible" means it was considered previously and decided to be impossible. No?
I mean, crpytographically, it's ultra-trivial. You "just" need to solve the logistical issues of (1) shortwave radio existing (2) figuring out how to make sure your field agents possess and are not caught with the disposable one-time codes. I am surprised anybody would consider that impossible.
(I hope I am not downplaying the brilliance of the one-time pad idea itself)
Comment by skeptic_ai 8 hours ago
Comment by pixl97 8 hours ago
Comment by john_strinlai 8 hours ago
Comment by aogaili 8 hours ago
this is not moving the goalposts, this is try to understand what this tech truly able and not able to do.
Comment by aogaili 8 hours ago
Reminds of what Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge..might be his deepest insight ever.
Comment by adsmit14 8 hours ago
Comment by aogaili 8 hours ago
Comment by aogaili 8 hours ago
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination encircles the world,” means that facts alone only describe what currently exists, while imagination allows us to discover what is yet unproven or unbuilt"
This probably sums up the current AI limitation nicely.
Comment by mgaldys4 8 hours ago
Comment by timcobb 8 hours ago
I think the more accurate description of what's happening is that access to expertise is becoming commodified.
Comment by mgaldys4 8 hours ago
Comment by dgellow 8 hours ago
Comment by pixl97 8 hours ago
John Henry.
There's a reason we made folklore about when the machines came for the strength of men, and now 150 years later it comes for our minds.
Comment by renyicircle 8 hours ago
Well, let them have these. They'll play around with open problems which generate media hype and then they might run out and move on to something else, because "AI came up with a problem and solved it in 3 days" won't have the same effects as "AI solved a problem in 3 days that humans couldn't solve in 100 years".
Comment by cubefox 7 hours ago
Comment by mrguyorama 6 hours ago
P=NP has always been drastically over stated as it's "Importance". It pretty much only exists as "That small technical detail that people with no domain knowledge think is important because youtube videos always focus on the trivial, 101 level cool fact stuff". Math focused CS people of course would always love any proof, but most people expect already that P!=NP, and no proof of that would be very meaningful, as it basically would not change our understanding of anything in the domain currently. It would be nifty, but not earth shattering.
Also the problems LLMs are attacking are resulting in proofs that don't seem particularly enlightening, so that's unfortunate.
However, there's always the tiny tiny chance it is P=NP, and any proof of that, regardless of how insightful it would or would not be, would be worth going fucking insane over. Just knowing that would be meaningful on it's own, and give us limitless work to do, and puts lots of mathematicians in an awkward spot.
I would be considered an AI skeptic because I'm not currently sacrificing myself at the altar of LLM companies, but if LLMs solve P=NP in any direction and even uselessly so, I think that's a good excuse to take days off work and party!
Comment by JBiserkov 6 hours ago
P=NP, but the margin-right is too narrow. Use Claude Design to hack Figma so you can change the margin and see the whole proof.Comment by bamboozled 48 minutes ago
Comment by skeledrew 8 hours ago
Only if you subscribe to the "humans are special" rhetoric, in which case I'm - maybe - sorry to say the feeling will only intensify.
Comment by dsign 8 hours ago
Comment by juvvel 7 hours ago
Without the human intellect to emulate, LLMs would be nothing.
Comment by dsign 9 minutes ago
Here, let me add my own little straw man: "if God didn't make us, how exactly did humans get so smart? Is not from a) being created in His image and b) being given His love? Without God, we would be mud from the ground (and a rib!)." If you agree with this statement, then, understandably, everything we have done since the Enlightenment has been to secure our place in hell, and LLMs are a particularly impertinent such device, but compared to a true human mind like a figurine of clay to a true person.
But, if of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not, and Man keeps measuring the thing and the thing indeed seems very smart, then Man should stop moping and deal with the consequences of their actions: either ban the thing or use it for their own benefit.
Comment by skeledrew 7 hours ago
Comment by huty2 7 hours ago
Prob because their life sucks.
Comment by Ygg2 7 hours ago
And used to build the LLMs of today. We'll see how that evolves once LLMs have to feed LLMs with their own "intellect".
Comment by suddenlybananas 7 hours ago
Comment by Ygg2 6 hours ago
Comment by goatlover 3 hours ago
I agree with Frank Herbert's view of "thinking machines".
Comment by suddenlybananas 7 hours ago
Comment by skeledrew 7 hours ago
Comment by deiptx 6 hours ago
Comment by skeledrew 6 hours ago
Comment by deiptx 6 hours ago
Comment by skeledrew 5 hours ago
Comment by deiptx 5 hours ago
Comment by skeledrew 1 hour ago
Comment by deiptx 42 minutes ago
Comment by suddenlybananas 7 hours ago
Comment by skeledrew 6 hours ago
Comment by suddenlybananas 2 hours ago
Comment by skeledrew 1 hour ago
Comment by gjsman-1000 8 hours ago
There used to be days when women would make blankets, when men would make chairs, when children would make brooms...
But PROGRESS I tell you!
Comment by mgaldys4 8 hours ago
But reform always has its victims. Like the textile workers who starved in the streets centuries ago, and me, kicked to death in the street by AI today...
Comment by IAmBroom 4 hours ago
Even old Ned Ludd won't buy my buggy whips, best in the land they may be.
Comment by Towaway69 6 hours ago
AI probably don’t dream of electric sheep but then again we don’t know. Perhaps we can find it out.
Perhaps AIs can figure out how to distribute wealth more fairly so that we can all dream of real sheep.
Intentionally philosophical PoV, what else is left for us monkies.
/s
Comment by applfanboysbgon 8 hours ago
Do any of the people proclaiming this shit actually use these models? No matter how many headlines are coming out, every day I deal with reams of the most horrific code I've ever seen technically compile, with routine mistakes that any human would get fired for if they made.
Comment by fidotron 8 hours ago
Seriously though, it ends up looking like that. To take a stupid example a couple of weeks ago I asked an agent to look at porting my hand written WebGL renderer (+ shaders etc) to WebGPU. It estimated a human would take 6-10 weeks, and I would agree. (Which is why I hadn't done it). 24 hours later it was deployed and live. This is classic tedious, difficult, low level if quasi mechanical work (rather like cracking an enigma message), and LLMs absolutely fly through it.
Comment by trixn86 7 hours ago
Comment by applfanboysbgon 8 hours ago
You do understand this is intentionally trained into recent models for marketing purposes? "Wow, it saved me months of work in a day! This is the most amazing technology ever!!!!"... is what it intends to evoke by underpromising and overdelivering. I routinely have it helpfully suggest it will take something like "three engineer-months" to do something I do by hand without any LLM assistance in a day. The estimates may be accurate if you have literally never touched a computer in your life before and are starting to learn from there.
Comment by fidotron 8 hours ago
Comment by applfanboysbgon 8 hours ago
Comment by rfgplk 6 hours ago
Comment by applfanboysbgon 6 hours ago
If you want to place a bet on it, we can do a $10,000 bet in escrow contingent on myself implementing a well-specified WASM engine from scratch on stream without LLM usage in a month. I would love an opportunity to demonstrate how wrong you are. That said, rather than taking your money, I could also just share a streamer's content with you[1]. He implemented 3D web rendering with no dependencies in a 20 minute lecture, and it would take 10 minutes if you were seriously focused on doing it quickly. Sure, it was rudimentary pure JS rather than WASM, but really consider whether you think this 10 minute exercise couldn't be done in a language that compiles to WASM with 160 hours, while including the other hardware/OS-layer abstractions aforementioned. On the other hand, please do take me up on my offer. You said it's a 0% chance, after all -- surely you don't want to pass up on the easiest $10,000 of your life...?
Comment by pixl97 8 hours ago
My dear sir, can you please lay out a dissertation of what this intelligence you speak of actually is. You seem to be much more informed than most of us here and therefore surely have made great contributions to furthering science and the arts.
/snark
It's difficult for me to be any less snarky than this even though it's not really wanted here on HN as you are pulling a kind of reverse snark. For example if I myself have lots of experience in subject X, and then by analogy apply it to subject Y to do something new in that subject, that would be called intelligent, and that would be pattern matching.
Pattern matching is a foundational building block of intelligence. You cannot have intelligence without pattern matching. Pattern matching alone is not general intelligence and requires more parts to work like that.
Comment by kypro 8 hours ago
Comment by dgellow 8 hours ago
Comment by pixl97 8 hours ago
So not any different from right now.
>definitely not available to humanity as a whole.
[taps on forehead meme]
The whole of humanity can have it available, if there is a whole lot less humanity.
Comment by dgellow 8 hours ago
Way, way more concentration of wealth and power
Comment by kypro 8 hours ago
Why?
> But also, whatever benefits are unlocked will be owned mostly by a small group of individuals, definitely not available to humanity as a whole.
It's unclear to me if this is the good scenario or bad scenario. This would be good in your view right? At least I hope you're right.
Comment by dgellow 8 hours ago
Because it is delusional. Having an intelligent machine doesn’t mean you can somehow mind control individuals.
And no, that would be pretty terrible. Why would that be good? The AI leadership is composed of anti-democratic, sociopathic, doomsday cultists who believe it makes sense to sacrifice the world economy and possibly mankind itself for a possible utopian future they developed based on their media illiterate reading of sci-fi. They are very likely the worst people who should ever be given power
Comment by kypro 6 hours ago
Excluding advanced forms of psychological manipulation, sophisticated neurological drugs and neural simulation for moment.
Are you suggesting that it's physically impossible to create a device which could induce electromagnetic currents in the brain which could in-theory either effectively control, or greatly influence someone's decision making?
I understand it would be extremely hard for humans, but can you explain why you're so confident that this would be such a hard problem that even an ASI couldn't solve it?
Comment by nba456_ 8 hours ago
Comment by fidotron 8 hours ago
The smartest humans now need to move to being less concerned about status games among humans and more with how to provide value to a mix of intelligent machines and humans. i.e. if you're starting an SaaS in 2026 you better be assuming half your revenue is going to come from machines acting by themselves.
Comment by NanoWar 4 hours ago
Comment by nonethewiser 3 hours ago
This is not to say the reaction to "mythos is too dangerous" is unfounded but it missed the most imporant and obvious signal. This technology is drastically changing the world.
Comment by okeuro49 5 hours ago
Comment by persedes 4 hours ago
Comment by ricksunny 7 hours ago
Comment by rafaelvasco 8 hours ago
Comment by kiproping 8 hours ago
Comment by bragr 8 hours ago
Comment by lokl 8 hours ago
Comment by orphereus 9 hours ago
Comment by johndhi 9 hours ago
Comment by LPisGood 8 hours ago
Comment by kragen 7 hours ago
Comment by dgellow 8 hours ago
Comment by LPisGood 8 hours ago
Comment by trixn86 7 hours ago
It was harder to design Symmetric Encryption using e.g. AES-256 than to break it? As far as I know it's design is pretty straight-forward but there is no known way to break it even with all compute of the planet at your disposal (excluding trivial ways like exposing the key).
Comment by LPisGood 5 hours ago
There are many examples of would be crypto algorithms that died on the vine because an attack was found. It is often recommended for beginners to study breaking cryptographic algorithms long before they attempt to create them.
Comment by trixn86 2 hours ago
Comment by ijustlovemath 8 hours ago
Comment by dgellow 7 hours ago
Comment by darkwater 8 hours ago
Comment by LPisGood 8 hours ago
Comment by joelthelion 8 hours ago
Comment by yrjrjjrjjtjjr 8 hours ago
When you design a new thing it will have a dozen drawbacks and a dozen and one benefits. If people then have a bias that everything ai is bad, the signal won't be strong enough to convince.
Comment by dgellow 8 hours ago
Comment by _superposition_ 8 hours ago
Comment by api 8 hours ago
There's some debate over to what degree current generation AI can be creative at all, or whether it can only crawl around its latent space and explore within constraints. One might ask: were all the solutions to all the math problems AIs have solved already "there" latent in the training data and just hadn't been spotted by humans and put together?
But then... isn't everything latent in our training data if training data is "all observations made about the universe?"
But then... what even is creativity? That gets into philosophy and metaphysics. Creativity, like consciousness and sentience and self-awareness, is not a rigorously well defined concept. So to a degree we don't even know how to ask the question of whether these things are creative.
This gets interesting.
One of the things I love about AI is the glittering Pandora's box of philosophical questions it poses.
Another one I love: if LLMs and their relatives are not, in fact, sentient or self-aware or alive in any way whatsoever (which I suspect is true given how they work), then it means intelligence and consciousness are unrelated phenomena. I'm pretty sure every animal and maybe even every living things has consciousness in some form, but my pet bunny rabbits definitely can't write code. LLMs can write code, but I don't think they experience existence or have volition.
IMO we have always implicitly just assumed some kind of connection between intelligence and consciousness because we have both. It was just an assumption. It's probably a false one.
I suspect (a hypothesis) that consciousness is a property of life and is probably emergent from life's intimate relationship to thermodynamics and the arrow of time. Life has also evolved intelligence because it's useful to satisfy its implicit survival goal function, but the two are unrelated. Intelligence is just an adaptation.
Comment by pixl97 8 hours ago
Whenever I hear "AI can never" I know I can disregard them as an unserious person when it comes to anything around AI, learning, or philosophy.
Comment by BubbleRings 7 hours ago
Comment by xnx 8 hours ago
Comment by sfn42 7 hours ago
Comment by 125ah 8 hours ago
Being trained on a mountain of stolen material for guessing cribs helps. Up to now no group had that much funding to steal. Congratulations.
Comment by ck2 8 hours ago
Then see if it can come up with E=mc^2
Comment by thomashop 8 hours ago
Comment by ck2 7 hours ago
a preprint just three weeks old with my question
what voodoo is this lol
maybe I picked up the relativity idea subconsciously from somewhere, but I don't recall it specifically, I thought I was being "clever" that it would be a good test
Comment by ekjhgkejhgk 8 hours ago
It seems like even yesterday that the threshold for impressing someone is that the machine would have to be good at pretending to be a person. Now the threshold is that they have to be able to invent special relativity.
Comment by bamboozled 47 minutes ago
Comment by ck2 8 hours ago
but was there enough knowledge by 1903 to truly figure that out?
or was it a leap in conscious realization that a machine could not emulate (yet)
(pretending to be a person is harder than math imho, much harder)
Comment by bluepeter 8 hours ago
Comment by dgritsko 8 hours ago
Comment by glub 8 hours ago
Based on what's publically available, they're focusing on hacking uncontesting orgs using misconfigured sandboxes and math puzzles.
Your statement is essentially unfalsifiable. We can't possibly discuss whatever Sam Altman is doing in his private office room, nor should we assume OpenAI is working on anything other than what has some public traces.
Comment by amelius 8 hours ago
I think they should now focus on robotics, so it can do my dishes while I work on fun math games.
Comment by pixl97 8 hours ago
why would they compete with Nvidia on that?
Comment by ieiej 8 hours ago
There’s this bizarre lesson that humanity is gona learn - much of life in many respects is already automated. And that small % of what is non-automated will be kept to have some semblance of feeling human and useful.
There’s already a lot of fake jobs and output of zero value - nobody bats an eyelid.
Comment by brainwad 6 hours ago
Comment by chorsestudios 8 hours ago
Comment by prodigycorp 8 hours ago
Comment by Mattrou 8 hours ago
Comment by iforgotmypasswo 8 hours ago
I think the publicity is a nice to have. They need models like this for in-house use.
Technically, this isn’t OpenAI directly.
Comment by bluepeter 8 hours ago
Comment by jjjee 8 hours ago
There are many things I want to do - that would require me to hire a team of 50 people.
I don’t want to do that nor can I afford to. Can OAI focus on enabling me to do this? I don’t care about this other stuff.
Just like many things in life - if it doesn’t show up in the economy it’s irrelevant.
Comment by subw00f 8 hours ago
Comment by yitchelle 8 hours ago
Comment by adsmit14 8 hours ago
Comment by seydor 5 hours ago
Comment by pashabitz 7 hours ago
Comment by ChrisArchitect 8 hours ago
GPT-6 Astra Solves a WWI German Radio Cipher
Comment by BubbleRings 7 hours ago
Comment by dyauspitr 4 hours ago
Comment by rhelz 7 hours ago
Comment by EGreg 8 hours ago
Comment by IAmGraydon 4 hours ago
Comment by ekjhgkejhgk 8 hours ago
> Despite the seeming difficulty in decrypting its messages, Enigma contained a number of design issues that left patterns in the cyphertext. Poland first cracked the machine as early as December 1932 and was able to read messages prior to and into the war. Poland's sharing of their achievements enabled the Allies to exploit Enigma-enciphered messages as a major source of intelligence.
Ok interesting, so why do people talk about Turing in this connection then?
> Turing devised techniques for speeding the breaking of German ciphers, including improvements to the pre-war Polish bomba method, an electromechanical machine that could find settings for the Enigma machine
Ok so Turing just improved an existing method. Without being an actual expert it's impossible to know how much credit he actually deserves.
Two more references: the Polish method was called "Bomba" [3] invented by Marian Rejewski [4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
Comment by pitaj 8 hours ago
Comment by ekjhgkejhgk 3 hours ago
Comment by trixn86 8 hours ago
Also: Why should we assume Terra, GLM or any other less SOTA and less expensive model wouldn't have been able to do the same?
Comment by oh_no 8 hours ago
And it's very possible Terra or GLM could crack it, turn off their web access and try yourself.
Comment by trixn86 7 hours ago
I never said this. All I said is we don't have the conversation and therefore we can't determine how easy or hard of a problem it was.
> And it's very possible Terra or GLM could crack it, turn off their web access and try yourself.
I'm questioning why this should be labeled "Astra" breaking anything implying it required "the best" model to do it when in fact any other half-decent model might have been able to do this as well.
EDIT: Okay seems like the actual prompt is published, just not on the same article that was linked. Maybe I'll give it a try.
Comment by mannyv 7 hours ago
Comment by yigalirani 8 hours ago
Comment by pixl97 8 hours ago
Comment by yigalirani 7 hours ago
Comment by partiallypro 6 hours ago
Comment by tamimio 7 hours ago
-hype or fear monger
-release the scary all-knowing model
-milk subscriptions and api in the first two months or so
-nerf the said scary model and use the excess compute and money acquired in an “internal model”
-internal model make hype or fear monger
-repeat
Comment by BenoitEssiambre 4 hours ago
Comment by simianwords 9 hours ago
Comment by qarl 8 hours ago
They don't care about the advancements themselves, only that the advancements are some sort of cheating that shouldn't "count".
Humanity is profoundly unsettled by AI and is responding with avoidance and denial.
Comment by howunfortunate 8 hours ago
Comment by goatlover 3 hours ago
Comment by johnsmith1840 8 hours ago
The internet was pretty important afterall even with a bubble.
Comment by jjjee 8 hours ago
Comment by howunfortunate 8 hours ago
I think the quote above is best as written, with a big emphasis on the "if"
Comment by johnsmith1840 7 hours ago
Comment by b38484848 8 hours ago
Comment by howunfortunate 8 hours ago
I'm pretty AGI-pilled, and I feel perfectly emotionally prepared for if AI stayed at its current capabilities and the S&P dropped 25%.
Comment by b38484848 5 hours ago
Comment by pixl97 8 hours ago
Comment by willy_k 8 hours ago
It’s another dot com bubble, not a crypto bubble. Trillion dollar valuations burst once you leave lesswrong.
Edit: very fancy autocomplete. I know what these things are capable of. It’s still not “intelligence”, for X definition of intelligence. And it certainly benefits from having obscene amounts of compete thrown at it. It is awesomely impressive synthesis of data, yet it’s clearly still that.
Comment by john_strinlai 8 hours ago
Comment by qarl 8 hours ago
Complete this sentence: "You can solve world hunger by..."
Intelligence is required to finish sentences. It's not just a Markov chain.
Comment by mossTechnician 8 hours ago
Granted, my phone keyboard lacks a substantial dictionary, offers words instead of tokens, has a very small context window, and doesn't randomize outputs (Ted Bungie is its primary recommendation every time), but those are basically parameters to the existing autocomplete.
Comment by willy_k 8 hours ago
*This un actionable summary of existing discourse. The real world doesn’t produce traces or take HTTP requests.
Comment by qarl 8 hours ago
Obviously there is no solution to world hunger right now. Nevertheless - finishing sentences is not pattern matching - and it's extremely obvious that whatever is going on inside LLMs is not pattern matching.
Comment by willy_k 8 hours ago
And it can only go so far, where those patterns are feasibly captured, eg internet discussions and coding and mathematics. It won’t measure up to the scaling laws of the physical world.
Comment by qarl 7 hours ago
OK - so long as you also agree that language is thought.
Until the advent of LLMs - language was considered the pinnacle of human intelligence. But humans have some need for mysticism at the root of their beliefs - so they chase the gaps in our knowledge. Like "God of the gaps."
Sure, world models will help navigate physical space; they are effectively the animal mind. Will they help unwind the laws of the universe? Probably not at all. Language is sufficient. Because it is thought.
Comment by willy_k 6 hours ago
Comment by qarl 6 hours ago
Every single day we have new and wondrous examples of the things LLMs have created.
Clearly we are using very different definitions of the word.
Comment by willy_k 6 hours ago
Comment by qarl 6 hours ago
I'm wondering if you can name anything that counts as a "creation" under your definition?
Comment by willy_k 3 hours ago
Comment by qarl 2 hours ago
I'd rather get specific than talk about hypotheticals.
Comment by brewcejener 6 hours ago
Comment by 001100000 8 hours ago
Comment by _s_a_m_ 7 hours ago
Is ClosedAI running out of money or what is going on?
Comment by pantsforbirds 7 hours ago
Comment by nozzlegear 6 hours ago
Comment by saberience 9 hours ago
This for me, isn't interesting, it required no skill, no imagination, in fact it seemed like it happened by dumb luck.
So we have entered an age where an army of know-nothings direct models to old forgotten tasks so they can get 15 minutes of un-deserved attention?
Comment by skeledrew 8 hours ago
Comment by miyoji 8 hours ago
What? Why? This has been my bar for my entire life, and I've never been bored for a single second.
Comment by skeledrew 8 hours ago
Comment by latexr 8 hours ago
Comment by sigmar 8 hours ago
[1] https://www.prinzai.com/p/gpt-6-astra-solves-a-wwi-german-ra...
Comment by dumberquestions 8 hours ago
Comment by daitangio 8 hours ago
I agree with you that these are not "trilling" discovery but they can be worth something anyway.
Like you, I do not like this news also because I think they will be used to just "push" the next two IPOs (Anthropic, OpenAI).
Comment by chrisjj 6 hours ago
At best, dumb brute force computation power.
It is about as meaningful as news that a computer found the 10....0th digit of Pi.
Comment by embedding-shape 9 hours ago
So like half of all useful human inventions are to you not interesting just because it happened by dumb luck?
Comment by pixl97 8 hours ago
Take someone from a few hundred years ago and drop them into today, and if they don't go catatonic and die, then they'd tell you that we created magic. "Wow, you live in a world of magic and all you do is bitch about it".
>"You're flying! You're sitting in a chair, in the sky!"
Comment by staticman2 8 hours ago
Comment by mossTechnician 8 hours ago
A machine running a loop through an expensive LLM for an undisclosed amount of time, which cost an undisclosed amount of money, which was told to keep looping into a solution was found, for a problem that nobody was very concerned about... That just seems like PR, and it's not so interesting.
Comment by IAmBroom 4 hours ago
Comment by dominotw 9 hours ago
Comment by willy_k 8 hours ago
Comment by pixl97 8 hours ago
Lets stop and think about this, there is now a machine that can solve a bunch of problems that have not been solved simply because there wasn't enough people with knowledge to work on them, and all we have to do is supply power to get the answers?
Irrational hate causes one to be blind.
Comment by latexr 7 hours ago
No? I don’t think that’s what they’re saying at all.
> there is now a machine that can solve a bunch of problems that have not been solved simply because there wasn't enough people with knowledge to work on them
That “simply” is doing a ton of work. A big reason there aren’t enough people with knowledge to work on these problems is that their basic needs aren’t met. If a slice of the money being poured into AI right now had been used to incentivise humans to work on these problems, maybe they wouldn’t still be unsolved.
> and all we have to do is supply power to get the answers?
That is again, quite reductive. The harms caused by LLMs, both environmental and societal, are much larger than “just supply power”.
> Irrational hate causes one to be blind.
Funny how it’s always the ones who disagree who are irrational and blind.
Comment by pixl97 7 hours ago
There is no world in which this was ever going to happen or it already would have. Simply throwing out a counter-factual without explaining how any incentive for that path of reality to work means you can make any claim and tell others it's obviously true with no evidence.
>disagree who are irrational and blind
Incorrect. The dialectic is how progress is made. Getting mad and turning off your brain is a different story.
Comment by latexr 6 hours ago
That’s the point. The incentive structure we have is bad. That’s the criticism.
> Simply throwing out a counter-factual without explaining how any incentive for that path of reality to work means you can make any claim and tell others it's obviously true with no evidence.
Again, you’re adding things to the argument which weren’t said. There is as reason “had been” was used.
Comment by writtenone 8 hours ago
Comment by varispeed 8 hours ago
5.6 Sol is much more capable.
Comment by podgorniy 7 hours ago
The prompt was `Decrypt encrypted with enigma `ICRVSORMCCWQTATYEVFXDBZGGSNXWLPSYWZYTCBSWULRTBZCVGODVJUSLSOOMJQJZSXSEBZPEYMDNXJYTC``
--
--
UPD. Lol. I pasted non-cyphered text
Qwen 3.7 max, gpt 5.6 sol, fable 5.1, gemini 3.8 flash decoded the message in one shot for me... There is nothing special about astra doing something here
I blantly threw request to decode the messaage in qwen 3.7. Used via api with couple simple generic system prompts like "be concise", nothing special. Prompted as
Decode
``` BTTE UM ANGABE DES MARSQWEGES X BEFINDE MIQ IN X ROSENOW ROSENOW X SOFORT FUNKANTWORT X WASCHBBSCH ```
--- response (I trunkated the output to conclusion only)
"BITTE UM ANGABE DES MARSCHWEGES. BEFINDE MICH IN ROSENOW. SOFORT FUNKANTWORT. [UNCLEAR/END]" Translation: "Please provide the marching route. I am located in Rosenow. Immediate radio response required. [Unclear]"
---
Comment by sailingparrot 7 hours ago
Comment by podgorniy 3 hours ago
I did another proper run and gemini 3.8 flash in antigravity solved it in about 45min https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49805363.
Comment by Perz1val 7 hours ago
Comment by podgorniy 3 hours ago
Comment by HDThoreaun 6 hours ago
Comment by podgorniy 3 hours ago
Comment by redsocksfan45 6 hours ago
Comment by writtenone 8 hours ago
Comment by john_strinlai 8 hours ago