I suggest you do this experiment yourself. You can try model architectures as big as your computer can fit. It won't work because these algorithms are designed to have no patterns at all. People have already tried.

More classically, you can try feeding the problem into a SAT solver. People have tried that too. Doesn't work - it just grinds until you run out of memory or patience, finding no useful results.

You can also try doing it by hand and see if you get anywhere (you won't). People have tried.

This is an adversarial problem. The problem is literally designed to be resistant to all kinds of analysis. That's the point. Even real attacks, like SHAttered (different kinds of attack on a different kind of algorithm) manage to find conditions where the probability of finding a solution is raised to 2^-70 or so, and then they let it grind on their biggest compute clusters until they find one. And that problem (finding a collision in a cryptographic hash function) is one that's especially amenable to grinding. If you're mounting a known plaintext attack it's unlikely your adversary will answer 2^70 encryption requests for you.

▲

danielmarkbruce 3 days ago | parent [-]

>> It won't work because these algorithms are designed to have no patterns at all

Every encryption algorithm proposal has this property of being designed to have no patterns....

▲

inigyou 3 days ago | parent [-]

And some of them still have no known patterns! Even the "broken" ones have only really subtle patterns. SHAttered was only 2^17 times faster than brute force. It took 2^63 attempts instead of 2^80 that bruteforce would take (which was arguably already too low).

▲

danielmarkbruce 3 days ago | parent [-]

Yup, sure. But my claim is that I believe it's better than 20-1 against that a model can break it. The fact that many encryption schemes have later been shown to be fragile and that very very large models seem to be able to things we can't explain well, and that you can create enormous amounts of training data for this problem makes my claim not so far fetched.

▲

inigyou 3 days ago | parent [-]

Try it and see then. If you can reverse double-SHA256 with some constraints, you can print yourself infinite bitcoin. If you can reverse whatever they use for public keys (RIPEMD and some elliptic curve) you can steal yourself infinite bitcoin.

	▲	danielmarkbruce 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, indeed. And if I really had a good idea for an architecture, and millions to blow trying different ideas... I would be doing that and not on hacker news.