10 comments

  • bmenrigh1 minute ago
    Has FHE really progressed so far that it&#x27;s now so efficient that doing computation on an encrypted prompt is feasible? I thought even basic operations like FHE addition were still thousands of times more complex. The only mention in the article I see is:<p>&gt; But while homomorphic encryption has a nontrivial cost overhead, it shifts the capability&#x2F;privacy trade-off to a question of cost. And the cost of homomorphic encryption is rapidly decreasing.<p>Which doesn&#x27;t spell out exactly hon &quot;nontrivial&quot; the cost overhead still is.
  • sabretooth140525 minutes ago
    My master&#x27;s thesis is on a topic in this field (Privacy Preserving ML) and from my understanding HE and other techniques have very high overheads(~10^3) on inference tasks and thus aren&#x27;t very commercially viable.
  • Cider998620 minutes ago
    This is the same Google that doesn&#x27;t have e2ee on their password manager by default. Like WTF, it&#x27;s a password manager.
    • amazingamazing6 minutes ago
      If you think about it for a moment you will realize the average user does not want that.
  • filup26 minutes ago
    Proper encryption means the ciphertext is indistinguishable from noise. So...in order to be able to process on it, you have to make it not indistinguishable from noise.<p>So I take offense to the term FHE. It&#x27;s a oxymoron.<p>The whole thing immidiatly stands out as a sham to build trust where it&#x27;s gone.
    • Ar-Curunir1 minute ago
      [delayed]
    • pluto_modadic22 minutes ago
      they could have gone with an oblivious transfer approach (where it&#x27;s working on what looks like multiple problems at once, you don&#x27;t know which)
    • drdeca21 minutes ago
      Eh? With secret sharing one can do computation on a shared secret where it is provable that no individual party can recover any information about the data with their share alone.<p>I don’t see why you conclude that FHE couldn’t be close to as secure as that. (Like, not information theoretically, but with computationally bounded adversaries.)
      • filup0 minutes ago
        I&#x27;m not saying that you can&#x27;t design a system for secure cloud computing.
  • Deukhoofd36 minutes ago
    It sounds neat, but I do wonder how viable this is commercially. How high do we rate the chances that governments around the world will step in before another kind of E2E is rolled out.
  • oulipo5 minutes ago
    Zama.ai is also a player in this space
  • jrm414 minutes ago
    Correct. I appreciate the theoretical technology here, but I believe a great deal of harm is done by the fact that people are not likely to understand exactly what this means.<p>Which is to say, I believe that google is strongly implying the falsehood of &quot;no one at Google can read your stuff.&quot;
  • FloatArtifact1 hour ago
    Encryption or not, if it&#x27;s on somebody else&#x27;s server, it isn&#x27;t yours. I don&#x27;t believe Google has my best interest.
    • u1hcw9nx1 hour ago
      With Fully Homomorphic Encryption it&#x27;s nobody elses.<p>The basic idea of of the project is to remove the need for trust.
      • unsungNovelty57 minutes ago
        It&#x27;s google. They are good at engineering. Not at creating trust. After the bizillionth time they have broken trust, there is no need for benefit of the doubt.
        • Plont27 minutes ago
          Yeah. Google is an ad business. Their entire motive for getting invested in AI is ad revenue. We&#x27;re supposed to believe they just... won&#x27;t turn on the money fountain? After going into the red for their data center investments? Hell nah.<p>I&#x27;d expect this to be something like the Google Ad ID: technically separated from what Google considers personal information, but trivially easy to tie back to an individual person and to other information about that person.<p>They&#x27;re continually breaking trust by illegally scraping up the internet to feed to their plagiarism machine, which they are now asking us to trust with more data. It&#x27;s not a compelling arguement.
        • throwaway2744828 minutes ago
          There&#x27;s more to life than branding.
        • tonyhart727 minutes ago
          so what&#x27;s the option ??? Meta ?? xAi ?? or OpenAI ???
          • unsungNovelty19 minutes ago
            Why should there by any reason to look at the above ones? We are talking about this B2C company which effects a lot of our lives. The discussion isn&#x27;t about that or this. The discussion is about JUST this specific company.
          • an0malous2 minutes ago
            Apple?
      • thih948 minutes ago
        To what end?
    • krunck53 minutes ago
      It&#x27;s FHE for &quot;cryptographically-secure private AI inference&quot; not for every other service where they snoop into your behavioral information.
    • kccqzy22 minutes ago
      This kind of attitude is really disrespectful of decades of progress in cryptography. Without even considering homomorphic encryption, classic encryption is specifically designed to make intermediate nodes such as ISP dumb pipes that do not know the contents of communication. The ISP can store your communications on their server however they want.<p>If you don’t agree with this model, I’m afraid modern cryptography doesn’t have anything to offer.
      • jewel3 minutes ago
        [delayed]
  • LoganDark37 minutes ago
    One flaw with FHE is that it guarantees only that you need the key to see the inputs or outputs of the computation, but not necessarily that the computation is the one you want. For example, the computation could be adversarial for certain inputs, or an adversary could insert their own computation first (or last).
    • noman-land21 minutes ago
      100% not an expert but my understanding was that part of what you are proving by signing the computation is that the computation itself was performed specifically as agreed to. I may be mixing this up with zero knowledge proofs.
      • LoganDark17 minutes ago
        If this were the case it would be necessary to send the entire model weights in response to every request which would be a bit inconvenient.
  • noident52 minutes ago
    Does this rely on the Trust Me Bro model, or is there some way for the client to verify that the provider actually isn&#x27;t able to see your inputs?<p>I want to read a whitepaper but all I can find is the tl;dw conference presentation
    • eslaught44 minutes ago
      The linked project page [1] claims to be fully homomorphic. Assuming the claim holds (I haven&#x27;t verified it), then there is provably no way for Google or anyone else to obtain any information from the encrypted data or computation performed on them.<p>FHE is traditionally <i>horrifically</i> slow, so it&#x27;s hard to imagine running anything beyond toy models with it. They list some applications on the original article page, but (presumably) they must be dramatically stripped down in order to run within any reasonable time budget. This is not going to run anything like a Sol&#x2F;Opus any time soon.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;heir.dev&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;heir.dev&#x2F;</a>
    • boilerupnc20 minutes ago
      Related, I&#x27;d seen this blog [0] posted on HN a few years back that gave a nice run down on the &quot;programmable cryptography&quot; space which introduce FHE and a few other neat concepts. Really enjoyed the read and learned some new terms.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;0xparc.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;programmable-cryptography-1" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;0xparc.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;programmable-cryptography-1</a>