What a deeply ignorant statement. There are no shortcuts to factoring a (sufficiently large) number, and that's not even touching on other kinds of PKC.

But this is a great example on why appealing to authority is a mistake and how academia is full of charlatans.

Only way I see that happening is if (big f... if) P = NP and some superintelligence devises a general algorithm to solve one on the other; but he's obviously not referring to that, as the timeline in that context is the next 1-5 years, i.e. the models we have now.

Edit: Lmao, the guy namedrops MLWE and ECDLP to save face, under the argumentation that he's worried about the public key algorithms out there when the "market share" of those algos is like 5%. RSA and ECC still rule the world and no amount of AI will "break" them.

To be generous to the guy, he had a point, but went hyperbole, and also packing that into a scant sentence didn't help make his case.

▲

DoctorOetker an hour ago | parent [-]

> RSA and ECC still rule the world and no amount of AI will "break" them.

Can you show a formal proof of this, or is this belief based in faith?

▲

moralestapia an hour ago | parent [-]

Sure.

1. Build factor pair so large it takes all atoms in the universe to store it.

2. Since there's no room for anything else, nothing can factor it.

:^)

	▲	smalltorch 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		In reality you can't get past a 2^256 limit of dev/urandom cspring without introducing your own random number generator which is possible. But yeah its easy math, lets say the pair is 1,000,000. Thats 1,000,000! possible combinations. You could stack 1,000,000 PB drives across the universe and not be able to store all the unique combinations.