Shtetl-Optimized

Update (April 19): Apparently a bug has been found, and the author has withdrawn the claim (see the comments).

For those who don’t yet know from their other social media: a week ago the cryptographer Yilei Chen posted a preprint, eprint.iacr.org/2024/555, claiming to give a polynomial-time quantum algorithm to solve lattice problems. For example, it claims to solve the GapSVP problem, which asks to approximate the length of the shortest nonzero vector in a given n-dimensional lattice, to within an approximation ratio of ~n^4.5. The best approximation ratio previously known to be achievable in classical or quantum polynomial time was exponential in n.

If it’s correct, this is an extremely big deal. It doesn’t quite break the main lattice-based cryptosystems, but it would put those cryptosystems into a precarious position, vulnerable to a mere further polynomial improvement in the approximation factor. And, as we learned from the recent NIST competition, if the lattice-based and LWE-based systems were to fall, then we really don’t have many great candidates left for post-quantum public-key cryptography! On top of that, a full quantum break of LWE (which, again, Chen is not claiming) would lay waste (in a world with scalable QCs, of course) to a large fraction of the beautiful sandcastles that classical and quantum cryptographers have built up over the last couple decades—everything from Fully Homomorphic Encryption schemes, to Mahadev’s protocol for proving the output of any quantum computation to a classical skeptic.

So on the one hand, this would substantially enlarge the scope of exponential quantum speedups beyond what we knew a week ago: yet more reason to try to build scalable QCs! But on the other hand, it could also fuel an argument for coordinating to slow down the race to scalable fault-tolerant QCs, until the world can get its cryptographic house into better order. (Of course, as we’ve seen with the many proposals to slow down AI scaling, this might or might not be possible.)

So then, is the paper correct? I don’t know. It’s very obviously a serious effort by a serious researcher, a world away from the P=NP proofs that fill my inbox every day. But it might fail anyway. I’ve asked the world experts in quantum algorithms for lattice problems, and they’ve been looking at it, and none of them is ready yet to render a verdict. The central difficulty is that the algorithm is convoluted, and involves new tools that seem to come from left field, including complex Gaussian functions, the windowed quantum Fourier transform, and Karst waves (whatever those are). The algorithm has 9 phases by the author’s count. In my own perusal, I haven’t yet extracted even a high-level intuition—I can’t tell any little story like for Shor’s algorithm, e.g. “first you reduce factoring to period-finding, then you solve period-finding by applying a Fourier transform to a vector of amplitudes.”

So, the main purpose of this post is simply to throw things open to commenters! I’m happy to provide a public clearinghouse for questions and comments about the preprint, if those studying it would like that. You can even embed LaTeX in your comments, as will probably be needed to get anywhere.

Unrelated Update: Connor Tabarrok and his friends just put a podcast with me up on YouTube, in which they interview me in my office at UT Austin about watermarking of large language models and other AI safety measures.

Follow

Back in 2006, in the midst of an unusually stupid debate in the comment section of Lance Fortnow and Bill Gasarch’s blog, someone chimed in:

Since the point of theoretical computer science is solely to recognize who is the most badass theoretical computer scientist, I can only say:

GO HOME PUNKS!

WIGDERSON OWNS YOU!

Avi Wigderson: central unifying figure of theoretical computer science for decades; consummate generalist who’s contributed to pretty much every corner of the field; advocate and cheerleader for the field; postdoc adviser to a large fraction of all theoretical computer scientists, including both me and my wife Dana; derandomizer of BPP (provided E requires exponential-size circuits). Now, Avi not only “owns you,” he also owns a well-deserved Turing Award (on top of his well-deserved Nevanlinna, Abel, Gödel, and Knuth prizes). As Avi’s health has been a matter of concern to those close to him ever since his cancer treatment, which he blogged about a few years ago, I’m sure today’s news will do much to lift his spirits.

I first met Avi a quarter-century ago, when I was 19, at a PCMI summer school on computational complexity at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. Then I was lucky enough to visit Avi in Israel when he was still a professor at the Hebrew University (and I was a grad student at Berkeley)—first briefly, but then Avi invited me back to spend a whole semester in Jerusalem, which ended up being one of my most productive semesters ever. Then Avi, having by then moved to the IAS in Princeton, hosted me for a one-year postdoc there, and later he and I collaborated closely on the algebrization paper. He’s had a greater influence on my career than all but a tiny number of people, and I’m far from the only one who can say that.

Summarizing Avi’s scientific contributions could easily fill a book, but Quanta and New Scientist and Lance’s blog can all get you started if you’re interested. Eight years ago, I took a stab at explaining one tiny little slice of Avi’s impact—namely, his decades-long obsession with “why the permanent is so much harder than the determinant”—in my IAS lecture Avi Wigderson’s “Permanent” Impact On Me, to which I refer you now (I can’t produce a new such lecture on one day’s notice!).

Huge congratulations to Avi.

Follow

Update: Alright, I’m back in. (After trying the same recovery mechanisms that didn’t work before, but suddenly did work this afternoon.) Thanks also to the Facebook employee who emailed offering to help. Now I just need to decide the harder question of whether I want to be back in!

So I’ve been locked out of Facebook and Messenger, possibly forever. It started yesterday morning, when Facebook went down for the entire world. Now it’s back up for most people, but I can’t get in—neither with passwords (none of which work), nor with text messages to my phone (my phone doesn’t receive them for some reason). As a last-ditch measure, I submitted my driver’s license into a Facebook black hole from which I don’t expect to hear back.

Incidentally, this sort of thing is why, 25 years ago, I became a theoretical rather than applied computer scientist. Even before you get to any serious software engineering, the applied part of computing involves a neverending struggle to make machines do what you need them to do—get a document to print, a website to load, a software package to install—in ways that are harrowing and not the slightest bit intellectually interesting. You learn, not about the nature of reality, but only about the terrible design decisions of other people. I might as well be a 90-year-old grandpa with such things, and if I didn’t have the excuse of being a theorist, that fact would constantly humiliate me before my colleagues.

Anyway, maybe some Facebook employee will see this post and decide to let me back in. Otherwise, it feels like a large part of my life has been cut away forever—but maybe that’s good, like cutting away a malignant tumor. Maybe, even if I am let back in, I should refrain from returning, or at least severely limit the time I spend there.

The truth is that, over the past eight years or so, I let more and more of my online activity shift from this blog to Facebook. Partly that’s because (as many others have lamented) the Golden Age of Blogs came to an end, with intellectual exploration and good-faith debate replaced by trolling, sniping, impersonation, and constant attempts to dox opponents and ruin their lives. As a result, more and more ideas for new blog posts stayed in my drafts folder—they always needed just one more revision to fortify them against inevitable attack, and then that one more revision never happened. It was simply more comfortable to post my ideas on Facebook, where the feedback came from friends and colleagues using their real names, and where any mistakes I made would be contained. But, on the reflection that comes from being locked out, maybe Facebook was simply a trap. What I have neither the intellectual courage to say in public, nor the occasion to say over dinner with real-life friends and family and colleagues, maybe I should teach myself not to say at all.

Follow

David Soloveichik, my friend and colleague in UT Austin’s Electrical and Computer Engineering department, and I are looking to hire a joint postdoc in “Unconventional Computing,” broadly defined. Areas of interest include but are not limited to:

(1) quantum computation,
(2) thermodynamics of computation and reversible computation,
(3) analog computation, and
(4) chemical computation.

The ideal candidate would have broad multi-disciplinary interests in addition to prior experience and publications in at least one of these areas. The researcher will work closely with David and myself but is expected to be highly self-motivated. To apply, please send an email to david.soloveichik@utexas.edu and aaronson@cs.utexas.edu with the subject line “quantum postdoc application.” Please include a CV and links to three representative publications. Let’s set a deadline of January 20th. We’ll be back in touch if we need recommendation letters.

My wife Dana Moshkovitz Aaronson and my friend and colleague David Zuckerman are also looking for a joint postdoc at UT Austin, to work on pseudorandomness and related topics. They’re asking for applications by January 16th. Click here for more information.

Follow

Happy Hanukkah! I’m returning to Austin from a Bay Area trip that included the annual Q2B (Quantum 2 Business) conference. This year, for the first time, I opened the conference, with a talk on “The Future of Quantum Supremacy Experiments,” rather than closing it with my usual ask-me-anything session.

The biggest talk at Q2B this year was yesterday’s announcement, by a Harvard/MIT/QuEra team led by Misha Lukin and Vlad Vuletic, to have demonstrated “useful” quantum error-correction, for some definition of “useful,” in neutral atoms (see here for the Nature paper). To drill down a bit into what they did:

• They ran experiments with up to 280 physical qubits, which simulated up to 48 logical qubits.
• They demonstrated surface codes of varying sizes as well as color codes.
• They performed over 200 two-qubit transversal gates on their encoded logical qubits.
• They did a couple demonstrations, including the creation and verification of an encoded GHZ state and (more impressively) an encoded IQP circuit, whose outputs were validated using the Linear Cross-Entropy Benchmark (LXEB).
• Crucially, they showed that in their system, the use of logically encoded qubits produced a modest “net gain” in success probability compared to not using encoding, consistent with theoretical expectations (though see below for the caveats). With a 48-qubit encoded IQP circuit with a few hundred gates, for example, they achieved an LXEB score of 1.1, compared to a record of ~1.01 for unencoded physical qubits.
• At least with their GHZ demonstration and with a particular decoding strategy (about which more later), they showed that their success probability improves with increasing code size.

Here are what I currently understand to be the limitations of the work:

• They didn’t directly demonstrate applying a universal set of 2- or 3-qubit gates to their logical qubits. This is because they were limited to transversal gates, and the Eastin-Knill Theorem shows that transversal gates can’t be universal. On the other hand, they were able to simulate up to 48 CCZ gates, which do yield universality, by using magic initial states.
• They didn’t demonstrate the “full error-correction cycle” on encoded qubits, where you’d first correct errors and then proceed to apply more logical gates to the corrected qubits. For now it’s basically just: prepare encoded qubits, then apply transversal gates, then measure, and use the encoding to deal with any errors.
• With their GHZ demonstration, they needed to use what they call “correlated decoding,” where the code blocks are decoded in conjunction with each other rather than separately, in order to get good results.
• With their IQP demonstration, they needed to postselect on the event that no errors occurred (!!), which happened about 0.1% of the time with their largest circuits. This just further underscores that they haven’t yet demonstrated a full error-correction cycle.
• They don’t claim to have demonstrated quantum supremacy with their logical qubits—i.e., nothing that’s too hard to simulate using a classical computer. (On the other hand, if they can really do 48-qubit encoded IQP circuits with hundreds of gates, then a convincing demonstration of encoded quantum supremacy seems like it should follow in short order.)

As always, experts are strongly urged to correct anything I got wrong.

I should mention that this might not be the first experiment to get a net gain from the use of a quantum error-correcting code: Google might or might not have gotten one in an experiment that they reported in a Nature paper from February of this year (for discussion, see a comment by Robin). In any case, though, the Google experiment just encoded the qubits and measured them, rather than applying hundreds of logical gates to the encoded qubits. Quantinuum also previously reported an experiment that at any rate got very close to net gain (again see the comments for discussion).

Assuming the result stands, I think it’s plausibly the top experimental quantum computing advance of 2023 (coming in just under the deadline!). We clearly still have a long way to go until “actually useful” fault-tolerant QC, which might require thousands of logical qubits and millions of logical gates. But this is already beyond what I expected to be done this year, and (to use the AI doomers’ lingo) it “moves my timelines forward” for quantum fault-tolerance. It should now be possible, among other milestones, to perform the first demonstrations of Shor’s factoring algorithm with logically encoded qubits (though still to factor tiny numbers, of course). I’m slightly curious to see how Gil Kalai and the other quantum computing skeptics wiggle their way out now, though I’m absolutely certain they’ll find a way! Anyway, huge congratulations to the Harvard/MIT/QuEra team for their achievement.

In other QC news, IBM got a lot of press for announcing a 1000-qubit superconducting chip a few days ago, although I don’t yet know what two-qubit gate fidelities they’re able to achieve. Anyone with more details is encouraged to chime in.

Yes, I’m well-aware that 60 Minutes recently ran a segment on quantum computing, featuring the often-in-error-but-never-in-doubt Michio Kaku. I wasn’t planning to watch it unless events force me to.

Do any of you have strong opinions on whether, once my current contract with OpenAI is over, I should focus my research efforts more on quantum computing or on AI safety?

On the one hand: I’m now completely convinced that AI will transform civilization and daily life in a much deeper way and on a shorter timescale than QC will — and that’s assuming full fault-tolerant QCs eventually get built, which I’m actually somewhat optimistic about (a bit more than I was last week!). I’d like to contribute if I can to helping the transition to an AI-centric world go well for humanity.

On the other hand: in quantum computing, I feel like I’ve somehow been able to correct the factual misconceptions of 99.99999% of people, and this is a central source of self-confidence about the value I can contribute to the world. In AI, by contrast, I feel like at least a thousand times more people understand everything I do, and this causes serious self-doubt about the value and uniqueness of whatever I can contribute.

Update (Dec. 8): A different talk on the Harvard/MIT/QuEra work—not the one I missed at Q2B—is now on YouTube.

Follow

Yet Another Update (Dec. 5): For those who still haven’t had enough of me, check me out on Curt Jaimungal’s Theories of Everything Podcast, talking about … err, computational complexity, the halting problem, the time hierarchy theorem, free will, Newcomb’s Paradox, the no-cloning theorem, interpretations of quantum mechanics, Wolfram, Penrose, AI, superdeterminism, consciousness, integrated information theory, and whatever the hell else Curt asks me about. I strongly recommend watching the video at 2x speed to smooth over my verbal infelicities.

In answer to a criticism I’ve received: I agree that it would’ve been better for me, in this podcast, to describe Wolfram’s “computational irreducibility” as simply “the phenomenon where you can’t predict a computation faster than by running it,” rather than also describing it as a “discrete analog of chaos / sensitive dependence on initial conditions.” (The two generally co-occur in the systems Wolfram talks about, but are not identical.)

On the other hand: no, I do not recognize that Wolfram deserves credit for giving a new name (“computational irreducibility”) to a thing that was already well-understood in the relevant fields.  This is particularly true given that

(1) the earlier understanding of the halting problem and the time hierarchy theorem was rigorous, giving us clear criteria for proving when computations can be sped up and when they can’t be, and

(2) Wolfram replaced it with handwaving (“well, I can’t see how this process could be predicted faster than by running it, so let’s assume that it can’t be”).

In other words, the earlier understanding was not only decades before Wolfram, it was superior.

It would be as if I announced my new “Principle of Spacetime Being Like A Floppy Trampoline That’s Bent By Gravity,” and then demanded credit because even though Einstein anticipated some aspects of my principle with his complicated and confusing equations, my version was easier for the layperson to intuitively understand.

I’ll reopen the comments on this post, but only for comments on my Theories of Everything podcast.

Another Update (Dec. 1): Quanta Magazine now has a 20-minute explainer video on Boolean circuits, Turing machines, and the P versus NP problem, featuring yours truly. If you already know these topics, you’re unlikely to learn anything new, but if you don’t know them, I found this to be a beautifully produced introduction with top-notch visuals. Better yet—and unusually for this sort of production—everything I saw looked entirely accurate, except that (1) the video never explains the difference between Turing machines and circuits (i.e., between uniform and non-uniform computation), and (2) the video also never clarifies where the rough identities “polynomial = efficient” and “exponential = inefficient” hold or fail to hold.

For the many friends who’ve asked me to comment on the OpenAI drama: while there are many things I can’t say in public, I can say I feel relieved and happy that OpenAI still exists. This is simply because, when I think of what a world-leading AI effort could look like, many of the plausible alternatives strike me as much worse than OpenAI, a company full of thoughtful, earnest people who are at least asking the right questions about the ethics of their creations, and who—the real proof that they’re my kind of people—are racked with self-doubts (as the world has now spectacularly witnessed). Maybe I’ll write more about the ethics of self-doubt in a future post.

For now, the narrative that I see endlessly repeated in the press is that last week’s events represented a resounding victory for the “capitalists” and “businesspeople” and “accelerationists” over the “effective altruists” and “safetyists” and “AI doomers,” or even that the latter are now utterly discredited, raw egg dripping from their faces. I see two overwhelming problems with that narrative. The first problem is that the old board never actually said that it was firing Sam Altman for reasons of AI safety—e.g., that he was moving too quickly to release models that might endanger humanity. If the board had said anything like that, and if it had laid out a case, I feel sure the whole subsequent conversation would’ve looked different—at the very least, the conversation among OpenAI’s employees, which proved decisive to the outcome. The second problem with the capitalists vs. doomers narrative is that Sam Altman and Greg Brockman and the new board members are also big believers in AI safety, and conceivably even “doomers” by the standards of most of the world. Yes, there are differences between their views and those of Ilya Sutskever and Adam D’Angelo and Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley (as, for that matter, there are differences within each group), but you have to drill deeper to articulate those differences.

In short, it seems to me that we never actually got a clean test of the question that most AI safetyists are obsessed with: namely, whether or not OpenAI (or any other similarly constituted organization) has, or could be expected to have, a working “off switch”—whether, for example, it could actually close itself down, competition and profits be damned, if enough of its leaders or employees became convinced that the fate of humanity depended on its doing so. I don’t know the answer to that question, but what I do know is that you don’t know either! If there’s to be a decisive test, then it remains for the future. In the meantime, I find it far from obvious what will be the long-term effect of last week’s upheavals on AI safety or the development of AI more generally. For godsakes, I couldn’t even predict what was going to happen from hour to hour, let alone the aftershocks years from now.

Since I wrote a month ago about my quantum computing colleague Aharon Brodutch, whose niece, nephews, and sister-in-law were kidnapped by Hamas, I should share my joy and relief that the Brodutch family was released today as part of the hostage deal. While it played approximately zero role in the release, I feel honored to have been able to host a Shtetl-Optimized guest post by Aharon’s brother Avihai. Meanwhile, over 180 hostages remain in Gaza. Like much of the world, I fervently hope for a ceasefire—so long as it includes the release of all hostages and the end of Hamas’s ability to repeat the Oct. 7 pogrom.

Greta Thunberg is now chanting to “crush Zionism” — ie, taking time away from saving civilization to ensure that half the world’s remaining Jews will be either dead or stateless in the civilization she saves. Those of us who once admired Greta, and experience her new turn as a stab to the gut, might be tempted to drive SUVs, fly business class, and fire up wood-burning stoves just to spite her and everyone on earth who thinks as she does.

The impulse should be resisted. A much better response would be to redouble our efforts to solve the climate crisis via nuclear power, carbon capture and sequestration, geoengineering, cap-and-trade, and other effective methods that violate Greta’s scruples and for which she and her friends will receive and deserve no credit.

(On Facebook, a friend replied that an even better response would be to “refuse to let people that we don’t like influence our actions, and instead pursue the best course of action as if they didn’t exist at all.” My reply was simply that I need a response that I can actually implement!)

Follow

No, I don’t know what happened with Sam Altman, beyond what’s being reported all over the world’s press, which I’ve been reading along with everyone else. Ilya Sutskever does know, and I talk to Ilya nearly every week. But I know Ilya well enough to know that whatever he’d tell me about this, he’d also tell the world. It feels weird to be so close to the biggest news story on the planet, and yet at the same time so far from it. My current contract with OpenAI is set to expire this summer. Until then, and afterwards, I remain just as interested in figuring out what theoretical computer science can contribute to AI safety as I was yesterday morning.

My friend, theoretical computer science colleague, and now OpenAI colleague Boaz Barak has coauthored a paper giving a general class to attack against watermarking methods for large language models—100% consistent with the kinds of attacks we already knew about and were resigned to, but still good to spell out at a formal level. I hope to write more about it in the future.

Here’s a recent interview with me in Politico, touching on quantum computing, AI, and more.

And if that’s not enough of me, here’s a recent podcast that I did with Theo Jaffee, touching on quantum computing, P vs. NP, AI alignment, David Deutsch, and Twitter.

Whatever feelings anyone has about it, the new University of Austin (not to be confused with the University of Texas at Austin, where I work) is officially launching. And they’re hiring! People who are interested in STEM positions there should contact David Ruth.

I forgot to link to it when it came out more than a month ago—a lot has happened in the meantime!—but Dalzell et al. put up a phenomenal 337-page survey of quantum algorithms, focusing relentlessly on the crucial question of whether there’s actually an end-to-end speedup over the best known classical algorithm for each given task. In countless situations where I would just scream “no, the hypesters are lying to you, this is BS,” Dalzell et al. take dozens of polite, careful, and highly technical pages to spell out why.

Besides AI intrigue, this past week might be remembered for a major breakthrough in classical complexity theory, in solving arbitrary compression problems via a nonuniform algorithm (i.e., a family of Boolean circuits) that takes only 2^4n/5 time, rather than the 2ⁿ time that would be needed for brute force. See this paper by Hirahara, Ilango, and Williams, and as well this independent one by Mazor and Pass.

Follow

I’ve been drowning in both quantum-computing-related and AI-related talks, interviews, podcasts, panels, and so on. These activities have all but taken over my days, leaving virtually no time for the actual research (especially once one factors in time for family, and time for getting depressed on social media). I’ve let things reach this point partly because I really do love talking about things that interest me, but partly also because I never learned how to say no. I have no choice but to cut back.

So, the purpose of this post is for me to link people to it whenever I get a new request. From now on, I agree only under the following conditions:

1. For travel: you reimburse all travel costs. I don’t have to go through a lengthy process for reimbursements, but just forward you my receipts. There’s not a time limit on doing so.
2. You don’t require me to upload my slides in advance, or provide readings or other “extra” materials. (Title and abstract a week or two before the talk are reasonable.)
3. You don’t require me to schedule a “practice session” or “orientation session” before the main event.
4. For podcasts and virtual talks: you don’t require me to set up any special equipment (including headphones or special cameras), or install any special software.
5. If you’re a for-profit company: you compensate me for the time.
6. For podcasts and virtual talks: unless specified otherwise, I am in Austin, TX, in US Central time zone. You email me a reminder the day before with the time in US Central, and the link. Otherwise I won’t be held responsible in the likely event that we get it wrong.

Follow

Another Update (Oct. 27): At Boaz Barak’s Windows on Theory blog, you can now find a petition signed by 63 prize-winning mathematicians and computer scientists—one guess which one is alphabetically first—asking that the kidnapped Israeli children be returned home. I feel confident that the pleas of Fields Medalists and Turing Award laureates will be what finally makes Hamas see the light.

Update: Every time another antisemite writes to me to excuse, justify, or celebrate Hamas’s orgy of murder and kidnapping, I make another donation to the Jewish Federations of North America to help Israeli terror victims, listing the antisemite’s name or alias in the “in honor of” field. By request, I’m sharing the link in case anyone else is also interested to donate.

Aharon Brodutch is a quantum computing researcher who I’ve known for nearly a decade. He’s worked at the Institute for Quantum Computing in Waterloo, the University of Toronto, his own startup company, and most recently IonQ. He’s thought about quantum discord, the one-clean-qubit model, weak measurements, and other topics that have long been of interest on this blog. He’s also on the paper giving an adaptive attack against Wiesner’s quantum money scheme—an application of the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester so simple and beautiful that I teach it in my undergrad Intro to Quantum Information Science class.

Yesterday I learned that Aharon’s sister-in-law Hagar, his niece Ofri, and his two nephews Yuval and Uriah were kidnapped by Hamas. Like Jews around the world, I’ve spent the last two weeks endlessly learning the names, faces, and life stories of hundreds of Israeli civilians who were murdered or kidnapped—and yet this news, directly affecting a colleague of mine, still managed to hit me in the gut.

I’m gratified that much of the world shares my revulsion at Hamas’s pogrom—the worst violence against Jews since the Holocaust—and joins me in wishing for the safe return of the 200 hostages as well as the destruction of Hamas, and its replacement by a governing authority that actually cares about the welfare of the Palestinian people. I’m glad that even many who call themselves “anti-Israel” or “anti-Zionist” have the basic human decency to be disgusted by Hamas. Some of the most touching messages of love and support that I got came from my Iranian friends.

All the same, for a whole week, my inbox and my blog moderation queue have been filling up with missives from people who profess to be thrilled, delighted, exhilirated by what Hamas did. They tell me that the young people at the Nova music festival had it coming, and that they hope Hamas burns the settler-colonialist Zionist entity to the ground. While some of these people praise Adolf Hitler, others parrot social-justice slogans. One of these lovely correspondents claimed that virtually all of his academic colleagues in history and social science share his attitudes, and said I had no right to lecture him as a mere computer scientist.

Meanwhile, as quantum computing founder David Deutsch has documented on his Twitter, in cities and university campuses around the world, posters with the names and faces of the children kidnapped by Hamas—just the names and faces of the kidnapped children (!)—are being torn down by anti-Israel activists. The cognitive dissonance involved in such an act is astounding, but also deeply informative about the millennia-old forces at work here.

One way I’ve been coping with this is, every time a Jew-hater emails me, I make another donation to help the victims in Israel, specifying that my donation is being made in the Jew-hater’s name. But another way to cope is simply to use this blog to make what’s at stake visceral and explicit to my readers. I got in touch with Aharon, and he asked me to share the guest post below, written by his brother Avihai. I said it was the least I could do. –Scott Aaronson

Guest Post by Avihai Brodutch

My name is Avihai Brodutch. My wife Hagar, along with our three children Ofri, Yuval, and Uriah, are being held hostage by Hamas. I want to share this message with people around the world: Children should never be involved in war. My wife and family should not be held hostage and they need to be released immediately.

Here’s my story:

I am an Israeli from Kfar Aza. My wife and I chose to build our home close to the border with Gaza, hoping for peace and relying on the Israeli government to protect our children. It was a beautiful home. Hagar, the love of my life, spent her entire life in Kibbutz Gvulot near the border. Our daughter Ofri, who is 10 years old, is an amazing, fun-loving girl who brings joy to everyone around her. Our son Yuval, 8, is smart, kind, and loving. And our youngest, Uriah, is the cutest little rascal. He is four and a half years old.  All four of them are in the hands of Hamas, and I hope they are at least together.

On October 7th, our family’s life was shattered by a brutal attack. Hamas terrorists infiltrated Kfar Aza early in the morning while I was away from home. Security alerts are common in the kibbutz, and we all thought this one was no different until Hagar heard a knock on the door and saw the neighbor’s 4-year-old girl, Avigail, covered in blood. Both her parents had been murdered, and Hagar took Avigail in. She locked the door, and they all hid in the house. Soon, the entire kibbutz was filled with the sounds of bullets and bombs.

I maintained contact with Hagar, who informed me that she had secured the door and was hiding with the children. We communicated quietly through text messages until she messaged, “they are coming in.” At that point, we lost communication, and I was convinced that I had lost my wife and three children. I do not want to describe the images that raced through my mind. A day later, I received word that a neighbor had witnessed them being captured and taken to Gaza. My family was alive, and this was the happiest news I’ve ever received. However, I knew they were far from being safe.

I am asking all the governments in the world, do the right thing and help bring my family back to safety. This is not controversial, it is obvious to every human, the first priority should be bringing the families back home. 

Follow

Update (Oct. 11): While this post celebrated Harvard’s Boaz Barak, and his successful effort to shame his into disapproving of the murder of innocents, I missed Boaz’s best tweet about this. There, Boaz points out that there might be a way to get Western leftists on board with basic humanity on this issue. Namely: we simply need to unearth video proof that, at some point before beheading their Jewish victims in front of their families, burning them alive, and/or parading their mutilated bodies through the streets, at some point Hamas also misgendered them.

The purpose of this post is to salute a longtime friend-of-the-blog for a recent display of moral courage.

Boaz Barak is one of the most creative complexity theorists and cryptographers in the world, Gordon McKay Professor of Computer Science at Harvard, and—I’m happy to report—soon (like me) to go on leave to work in OpenAI’s safety group. He’s a longtime friend-of-the-blog (having, for example, collaborated with me on the Five Worlds of AI post and Alarming trend in K-12 math education post), not to mention a longtime friend of me personally.

Boaz has always been well to my left politically. Secular, Israeli-born, and a protege of the … err, post-Zionist radical (?) Oded Goldreich, I can assure you that Boaz has never been quiet in his criticisms of Bibi’s emerging settler-theocracy.

This weekend, though, a thousand Israelis were murdered, kidnapped, and raped—children, babies, parents using their bodies to shield their kids, Holocaust survivors, young people at a music festival. It’s already entered history as the worst butchery of Jews since the Holocaust.

In response, 35 Harvard student organizations quickly issued a letter blaming Israel “entirely” for the pogrom, and expressing zero regrets of any kind about it—except for the likelihood of “colonial retaliation,” against which the letter urged a “firm stand.” Harvard President Claudine Gay, outspoken on countless other issues, was silent in response to the students’ effective endorsement of the Final Solution. So Boaz wrote an open letter to President Gay, a variant of which has now been signed by a hundred Harvard faculty. The letter reads, in part:

Every innocent death is a tragedy. Yet, this should not mislead us to create false equivalencies between the actions leading to this loss. Hamas planned and executed the murder and kidnapping of civilians, particularly women, children, and the elderly, with no military or other specific objective. This meets the definition of a war crime.  The Israeli security forces were engaging in self-defense against this attack while dealing with numerous hostage situations and a barrage of thousands of rockets hidden deliberately in dense urban settings.

The leaders of the major democratic countries united in saying that “the terrorist actions of Hamas have no justification, no legitimacy, and must be universally condemned” and that Israel should be supported “in its efforts to defend itself and its people against such atrocities.“ In contrast, while terrorists were still killing Israelis in their homes,  35 Harvard student organizations wrote that they hold “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence,” with not a single word denouncing the horrific acts by Hamas. In the context of the unfolding events, this statement can be seen as nothing less than condoning the mass murder of civilians based only on their nationality. We’ve heard reports of even worse instances, with Harvard students celebrating the “victory” or “resistance” on social media.

As a University aimed at educating future leaders, this could have been a teaching moment and an opportunity to remind our students that beyond our political debates, some acts such as war crimes are simply wrong. However, the statement by Harvard’s administration fell short of this goal. While justly denouncing Hamas, it still contributed to the false equivalency between attacks on noncombatants and self-defense against those atrocities. Furthermore, the statement failed to condemn the justifications for violence that come from our own campus, nor to make it clear to the world that the statement endorsed by these organizations does not represent the values of the Harvard community.  How can Jewish and Israeli students feel safe on a campus in which it is considered acceptable to justify and even celebrate the deaths of Jewish children and families?

Boaz’s letter, and related comments by former Harvard President Larry Summers, seem to have finally spurred President Gay into dissociating the Harvard administration from the students’ letter.

When I get depressed about the state of the world—as I have a lot the past few days—it helps to remember the existence of such friends, not only in the world but in my little corner of it.

Follow