You could 1. generate a key pair, 2. put the public key as metadata in the unforgable blockchain entry, and 3. sign whatever message is needed to be tied to this entry with the private key. This scheme ensures no unauthorized message is associated to the same blockchain entry (a property verifiable by anyone), but is vulnerable to an attack needing say an identical message on a different physical object (someone copying the sticker, as you suggest). Depending on the particular needs, this may or may not be sufficient.

Presumably he's describing a system where the sticker is signed by a blockchain entry, or something, which can be checked automatically by a scanner.

Really? The best they could come up with is comparing the bot to a programmable mouse, illegal in human play? This standard basically disqualifies any bot implementation being fair in their definition just on the basis of being a program. What do they want? The bot to send commands to a human operator which plays the game for it?

Their slightly less ridiculous claim is saying the bot is unfair because it interfaces with the game not through mouse and keyboard and the dota renderer but through valve's bot api. Just..fine, if you dont care about how good a bot can be under the dota developer's own definition, then ignore the results.

I just dont understand the mindset here, is this resistance to change? People dont want AI to be good, so they make up narratives to explain away recent successes? It really feels like the same mindset as conspiracy theorists.

Modern cpus are designed so that some instructions take multiple cycles to complete. Think floating point operations, loads and stores, probably most nontrivial instruction from extended sets (SSE, AVX, etc). During these operations, the cpu can do other business and will try to schedule all its modules maximally. Just as an example, imagine a floating point matrix multiplication. The loop bookkeeping code (index compare and branch, increment) is literally free because it can complete fast enough to keep the floating point math module 100% saturated. In this workload, the integer module is mostly idle.

My understanding of hyperthreading is its an attempt to schedule the cpu modules maximally over 2 threads, not just 1. So maybe you would see a benefit if 1 process was doing a lot of memory operations and the other a lot of math, or if 1 was doing a lot of integer math and the other floating point math. I'm not an expert on this but my understand is that billions of dollars in research have gone to squeeze average case performance out of modern cpus and HT is one piece of the puzzle.

I think they're developing the liar to model the situation in which an AI might not be trustworthy or malicious. The experiment is proposing a method to trust AIs in the absense of knowing their internals completely.

Its the magnetic field, not the atmosphere, which protects people on the ground.

Maybe we can make it two centuries in a row!

Then again, AI which could beat humans at Go were 10 years away last year :)

So much for american technology

The author offers the fact that Google open sources some of its software to profit off of the support it provides in a tone that suggests this is a problem. This is one of those everybody wins scenarios which Richard Stallman dreamed about when he invented the GPL. Can anyone explain to me what reason the author has to be upset other than "someone other than me is making money"?

Well im not happy with the word the physicists have chosen either, but this is actually established terminology. It refers to the ability to transfer a qubit by actually transfering 2 classical bits, provided the two parties have preshared an EPR entangled pair of qubits.

After some googling, one source says about 4000 qubits to break 2048-bit RSA keys. Another says 10000 for the same job

I had a VCR which did this in the 90s for taped TV. I'm not sure how it worked, but on playback it would just physically fast forward through the commercials.

If facebook only needs a hash of the image, it should allow users to upload only the hash by providing the hashing function. Or are we talking about something super proprietary here?

To solve the accidental activation problem, the single button solution obviously would have been implemented with a physical guard over the button, like in fighter jets over the missile arm buttons. Such a timeless and elegant solution would have been, in Bill's view, just one more way Microsoft could have revolutionized the PC market and culture. /sarcasm