
Zachary retweeted
if youre afraid of AI taking your job, then youve clearly never had a job where the job description was "figure out what needs doing and do it"
Zachary retweeted
I don't recommend anyone scramble to move their funds to new wallets today. But we should take the risks to cryptography from AI-accelerated math seriously, and minimize our exposure to not just quantum-vulnerable cryptography, but also potentially AI-vulnerable cryptography.
The core new area of risk from this viewpoint is, unfortunately, ML-DSA / FHE / lattices.
(and it's also another reason, along with quantum, why ECDSA might fall even faster than expected, hence the "fresh address" recommendation)
So far most people have been in the mode of thinking "elliptic curves broken, hashes safe, lattices safe". But there is a good chance that the concrete security of lattices will take serious hits from the next two years of AI math.
The basic threat model is: factoring is something that naively takes 2^(n/2) time, but over decades smart people have found and optimized number field sieves, and degraded that to 2^O(n^(1/3)), which is why RSA keys and signatures need to be ~400 bytes (and not 64 bytes). What if there are skeletons in the closet like that, both for elliptic curves and lattices, that we are simply not smart enough to discover - but bots soon will be?
This is a major part of the reason why for the past year ethereum's lean roadmap has been going in the "hash-only" direction: no lattices, no ML-DSA, no Falcon, no lattice-based commitments inside ZK proofs, etc. Signatures in lean ethereum are all hash-based, either WOTS or SPHINCS-.
For signatures and proofs, we already know how to go hash-only. The bigger challenge is for *public-key encryption* - and this goes far beyond blockchains. Secure communication, anonymizing protocols, lots of things need public-key encryption.
And unfortunately there are long-standing mathematical theorems showing why public-key encryption cannot be done with hashes alone. You have to have some kind of trapdoor object that has at least one form of usable "structure" - either group theory (incl. isogenies) or lattices or code-based or potentially in the future even more newfangled and spooky things (local mixing?). But for anything that has structure, you should assume that AI will make at least some progress in breaking that structure. Here, one reasonable inference is that if you want to make something plausibly long-term secure, multiply the key sizes by 10.
To me that's a very plausible world and something not at all extreme to predict. If AI will bring us 50 years of math in 2 years, then that 50 years of math may very plausibly include a "naive factoring -> GNFS" level of improvement to our ability to break lattices. In that world, lattices will still exist, but they will have to be significantly bigger to guarantee the same level of safety.
And at those new larger sizes, hash-based constructions will beat lattice-based constructions on concrete efficiency in every use case where hash-based constructions are possible at all.
Theoretically, of course it's possible that hashes are broken too (eg. P = NP would imply that). But I think P = NP is very unlikely. And intuitively, it's much more likely that a mathematical object has exactly no exploitable structure (like hashes are intended to), than that a mathematical object has exactly ~3 forms of exploitable structure (for elliptic curves: associativity, Schoof, pairings) and not some secret fourth form of structure we have not yet discovered that greatly degrades its security (for elliptic curves, ECDLP and pairing security). Similar for LWE, SVP, RLWE and the zoo of lattice problems.
For this reason, we do not yet see any reason to worry and start padding the byte size of hashes (if we start to worry more, we would pad the round count first before doing anything to the byte size).
Concrete TLDR, my own personal views:
* Hash-based > lattice-based, in those situations where hash-based is possible at all
* For anything lattice-based, be much more paranoid on param sizes. Remember that blockchains are only a small portion of the cryptography story; this point goes far beyond blockchains and applies to eg. access to websites, secure messaging, Tor / VPNs ...
* For privacy protocols, strongly favor NOT putting encrypted notes onchain. Instead, send them offchain through some third-party mechanism.
* If it's not difficult for you, keeping your funds in addresses which have not yet been used to make a transaction is a good idea. If it's easy for you, do it. **But be careful about migrations; I personally have lost more money in botched migrations than I have lost in all hacks combined**.
* For multisig wallets, doing confirmations offchain is better than onchain, because this way the signatures of signer wallets do not get exposed to the public, so if ECDSA falls to AI much faster than expected, at least the multisig "gracefully degrades" to a 1-of-1 where the 1 is whoever was gathering the signatures - a much better place to be than "anyone can take the money"
firefly.social/post/x/210783…
Zachary retweeted
I resigned from Apple today. I spent the last three years doing foldable research at both google and apple. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving foldables and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.
Zachary retweeted
excited to introduce @playco's playbot, a pro game creation IDE with @OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra.
openai.com/index/playco-game…
Zachary retweeted
Finally got around to working on my portfolio site
Came up with this simple, but what I feel is clean design. I also created a new gradient library specifically for it
You can check it out on my personal website under the Works👇
Zachary retweeted
Wait guys
What if…
What if this is the agent launchpad
And we’re all agents on the launchpad
Fuck
Oh fuck
You guys
Zachary retweeted
Started version 5,426 of my end game vibecoded project.
This time I've crafted an explicit AGENTS/CLAUDE.md for my agents to follow.
I'll be repeating this process in the future for new projects
Zachary retweeted
あらゆる言語が自動翻訳に対応し、世界中の人々がシームレスにコミュニケーションを取れる様になったら、国対国という従来からある構図が崩れて、常識対非常識という構図になるだろうな。
Zachary retweeted
My net worth peaked at $1.2 million.
None of it was real.
I don't mean that philosophically. I mean it was located on servers that have since been turned off.
I own eleven properties in the metaverse. Three in Decentraland. Four in The Sandbox. Two in Voxels. One in Otherside. And a beachfront villa in Horizon Worlds that I bought for $214,000 because Mark Zuckerberg called it "the next frontier."
The frontier closed last week.
It's a mobile app now.
Last year I mass DM'd 340 people the phrase "you don't understand how early we are." I have since stopped doing that. Not because I was wrong. Because most of them blocked me.
I got into metaverse real estate in November 2021. Everyone was buying. Someone paid $450,000 to be Snoop Dogg's neighbor. In a video game. With no legs.
The avatars didn't have legs.
I thought that was bullish. "The legs are coming," I told my Discord. "Legs are a roadmap item." Three hundred people reacted with rocket emojis.
I called myself a "digital land baron."
I put it in my Twitter bio.
I put it in my LinkedIn headline.
I said it on a podcast that had eleven listeners. Three of them were bots. The rest were my alts.
My virtual property has more square footage than my actual apartment.
My actual apartment has furniture.
Location, location, location.
My most valuable asset was a plot next to a virtual Gucci store. Gucci left in 2023. The store is still there. Nobody's in it. It's like a mall in Ohio but with worse graphics and no food court.
I held.
Diamond hands.
That's what we said. "Diamond hands." It means refusing to sell while your investment loses 94% of its value. We turned financial paralysis into a personality trait.
A guy in my Discord paid $2.4 million for a 618-parcel estate in Decentraland. Prime district. High foot traffic. I asked him what "foot traffic" meant when the platform had 38 daily active users.
He said I didn't understand the technology.
I didn't.
I still bought more.
We had a DAO. A decentralized autonomous organization. That means we voted on decisions. There were nine of us. Three never showed up. Two voted on everything without reading it. The other four were me and my alts.
We voted to "acquire strategic parcels."
The vote passed unanimously.
I voted four times.
My portfolio peaked at $1.2 million. I told everyone. I made a spreadsheet. I projected 40x returns by 2025. I made a pitch deck. The pitch deck had a slide that said "WE ARE BUILDING THE DIGITAL ECONOMY."
The slide had a rocket emoji.
That was my entire financial model.
In 2023 I bought a Bored Ape for $189,000.
It's worth $14,000 now.
I don't talk about the Ape.
I still use it as my profile picture. People ask me about it. I say "I'm long-term bullish." Long-term bullish means I can't sell it without crying in a Panera.
My mom asked me what a Bored Ape was.
I said "digital art on the blockchain."
She asked why it cost more than her car.
I said "you don't understand Web3."
She said "I understand you live in a studio apartment."
She's not in my Discord.
Justin Bieber bought one for $1.3 million.
It's worth about $90,000 now.
I felt better about mine after I heard that.
That's community.
WAGMI. We're All Gonna Make It. We said that every day. In the group chat. While the floor dropped. While the volume dried up. While 95% of all NFT collections went to zero.
We're all gonna make it.
None of us made it.
But we said it with conviction and a laser-eye profile picture. That counts for something.
It doesn't.
But we said it did. That's decentralized consensus.
Meta spent $84 billion on the metaverse.
I need to say that again.
$84 billion.
More than the GDP of Luxembourg. More than the GDP of Iceland, Luxembourg, and Malta combined. They spent it on a platform where the avatars had no legs, the graphics looked like a 2006 Wii game, and the peak user count was lower than the lunch rush at a Chipotle in Des Moines.
They just pulled Horizon Worlds from VR headsets.
It lives on as a mobile app.
My beachfront villa is now a mobile app.
Location, location, location.
Zuckerberg renamed the entire company for this. Facebook became Meta. A $900 billion company changed its legal name because the CEO watched Ready Player One and said "I want that."
Reality Labs lost $10 billion in 2021. $14 billion in 2022. $16 billion in 2023. $18 billion in 2024. $19 billion in 2025.
That's not a strategy. That's a speedrun.
They laid off 1,500 Reality Labs employees this year. Shut down three VR studios. Killed Supernatural. Put the entire VR social vision in a casket and said "we're pivoting to AI and wearables."
The pivot took four years and $84 billion.
I pivoted too.
I'm an AI real estate investor now.
I bought a virtual plot in an AI-generated world that doesn't exist yet. The founder said it was "the intersection of spatial computing and large language models."
I don't know what that means.
I gave him $40,000.
He has a whitepaper. It's 47 pages. I read the title and the tokenomics section. The tokenomics section is a pie chart. I love pie charts. They make everything look like a plan.
The project has a roadmap. Q1: "Build community." Q2: "Launch beta." Q3: "Scale ecosystem." Q4 is blank.
Q4 is always blank.
That's where the exit scam goes.
My accountant asked me to value my metaverse portfolio for tax purposes.
I said $1.2 million.
He said "current market value."
I said $6,400.
He stared at me for eleven seconds.
I know because I counted.
He asked if I had any other investments.
I showed him my NFTs.
He stared for longer.
I told him they were "cultural artifacts with long-term provenance."
He asked if I'd considered a 401k.
I told him a 401k was "legacy finance."
He told me to leave his office.
The metaverse is dead.
I don't accept that.
I am a digital land baron. I own eleven properties across four platforms. I have a beachfront villa in a mobile app, a plot next to an empty Gucci store, and a cartoon monkey that cost me more than my actual car.
Location, location, location.
The location is nowhere.
But I'm early.
I'm always early.
That's the same as being wrong except you get to say it with confidence.
Zachary retweeted
Unpopular Opinion: We aren't building the future 10x faster with AI. We are just generating legacy code 10x faster.
Everyone is currently bragging about developer velocity. "I built this entire backend in a weekend!" "AI wrote 80% of my codebase!"
But here is the reality check we are ignoring: Code is a liability, not an asset.
If an AI tool spits out 1,000 lines of functional boilerplate in five seconds, that is still 1,000 lines that a human being has to read, review, secure, and maintain when the dependencies inevitably break next year.
We are treating code generation like a pure productivity win, but we are optimizing for the wrong metric. The bottleneck in software engineering was never how fast we could type. The bottleneck has always been comprehension, architecture, and maintenance.
If we don't shift our focus from "generation speed" to "architectural sanity," the tech debt of the next five years is going to be an absolute, unmaintainable nightmare.
Zachary retweeted
New Game Added
🏂🍄Snowploard
This one’s going to be one of my favorites. Anyone else play alot of SSX Tricky as kid?
Replying to @latentsauce
Complexity ends up growing at an exponential rate, it becomes very hard to understand stuff when everyone around you is running 35,000 agents to write their code
Zachary retweeted
microservices are overrated for most teams. start with a monolith. extract services when you have pain. premature distribution hurts.
Zachary retweeted
when devs are cooking they are definitely not cooking
The amount of code you ship is the #1 determining factor of whether or not you are allowed to DoorDash dinner vs cook.






















