The correct title: Researcher brakes one specific stubborn historic enigma message with good help from Astra.

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.

From TFA:

"However, the most astonishing thing about this break is that the GPT–6 Astra did it entirely on its own."

I agree with this. I think the researchers who's harnessing the llm's power should be credited more than the model itself. We also need to understand the thought process and the prompts that are given to the model so we can learn and collab to ensure humanity's progress as much as the llm itself.

It seems I was wrong in this instance with regard to the "colab" part.

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.

Even if this is true, we must avoid falling into the trap of Kasparov of betting on Centaur Chess.

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.

8 months ago I got to the top of highload.fun using GPT-5 and Opus 4.5, and a lot of human interaction.

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.

> The correct title: Researcher brakes one specific stubborn historic enigma message with good help from Astra.

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."

Your suggested title is more misleading, so what’s the value in using it?

*breaks, and also, your conclusion ignores the words typed by the article's author in the piece you presumably read, where it is reported that Astra did it mostly on its own.

Therefore Astra could also have done this comment better

that the left rotor turned over at 72 - was that a bug or a feature?

What's amazing is this comment is complete bullshit, and yet is #1.

Don't people actually read anymore?

Your "corrected" title is much less descriptive of what actually happened

also the entirety of the research that went into breaking enigma in the first place is in the training dataset

Come on, the trivializations start to sound quite unfounded now. Yes, a human was needed, but no, it wasn't a "collaboration"

If generating an image doesn't make you an artist, generating a solution doesn't make you a researcher.