Top
Best
New

Posted by u1hcw9nx 3 hours ago

Google is making private AI practical with homomorphic encryption(blog.google)
68 points | 51 commentspage 2
oulipo 1 hour ago|
Zama.ai is also a player in this space
noident 2 hours 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't able to see your inputs?

I want to read a whitepaper but all I can find is the tl;dw conference presentation

eslaught 2 hours ago||
The linked project page [1] claims to be fully homomorphic. Assuming the claim holds (I haven'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.

FHE is traditionally horrifically slow, so it'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/Opus any time soon.

[1]: https://heir.dev/

boilerupnc 1 hour ago||
Related, I'd seen this blog [0] posted on HN a few years back that gave a nice run down on the "programmable cryptography" space which introduce FHE and a few other neat concepts. Really enjoyed the read and learned some new terms.

[0] https://0xparc.org/blog/programmable-cryptography-1

LoganDark 2 hours 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-land 1 hour 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.
LoganDark 1 hour 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.
drdeca 1 hour ago||
Hmm, could one instead of sending the model weights, send like, a merkle tree root for them, not exactly specifying the model, but at least demonstrating that the same model is used each time?
jrm4 1 hour 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.

Which is to say, I believe that google is strongly implying the falsehood of "no one at Google can read your stuff."

filup 2 hours 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.

So I take offense to the term FHE. It's a oxymoron.

The whole thing immidiatly stands out as a sham to build trust where it's gone.

flambo 1 hour ago||
This is actually the magic of FHE. The ciphertext is indistinguishable from noise AND can be computed on, it just looks like different noise.

If you believe the underlying cryptographic hardness assumption of LWE/RLWE/etc, then yes Google cannot see any of the input or output of the model.

filup 1 hour ago||
If it only appears indistinguishable from noise, but it's actually not, then it's just deception.
drdeca 1 hour ago||
They didn’t say that it “appears” indistinguishable from noise, but that it is indistinguishable.

It seems like you strongly believe otherwise, but I suspect you don’t have a good reason to, and just find it unbelievable.

Do you think you can distinguish it from noise, if given an implementation and the information an adversary would have access to?

Of course, you not being able to wouldn’t demonstrate that noöne can. But, it seems like if you had a good reason to believe that an adversary can, that would suggest you might have some idea of how they could do so. And, if you do have such an idea, then, if that idea works, it would be important for others to know, and if it doesn’t, it would presumably benefit your understanding to see why it doesn’t.

filup 36 minutes ago||
>They didn’t say that it “appears” indistinguishable from noise, but that it is indistinguishable.

That's the oxymoron. If it was indistinguishable nothing could be gained.

It's not about me being able to distinguish it. It's the model provider saying they cant, when they can.

pluto_modadic 1 hour ago|||
they could have gone with an oblivious transfer approach (where it's working on what looks like multiple problems at once, you don't know which)
drdeca 1 hour 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.

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.)

filup 1 hour ago||
I'm not saying that you can't design a system for secure cloud computing.
drdeca 1 hour ago||
You said that FHE is an oxymoron, seemingly on the basis that in proper encryption the ciphertext is indistinguishable from noise, and you think this can’t be true of FHE. I am arguing to the contrary.

In the secret sharing multi-party computation schemes, the individual shares of the secret are random and have no information about the plaintext.

I see no reason that FHE can’t have ciphertexts indistinguishable from noise.

Ar-Curunir 1 hour ago||
No, that’s not what proper encryption means. Security for encryption means that cipher texts encrypting distinct messages are indistinguishable. This is called IND-CPA, and FHE satisfies this.
filup 1 hour ago||
How can it possibly pass indcpa. If the model can give me any valuable information about the cipher. Apparently the middle man would know precisely what is contained in the payload.
drdeca 45 minutes ago||
Here’s a very simple one-time-pad style construction for homeomorphic (but not fully homeomorphic) encryption.

Suppose the plaintext, ciphertext, and key, are each a natural number modulo 5.

The key is selected uniformly at random. The ciphertext is obtained by adding the key to the plaintext (and as a result is also uniform random).

Then the ciphertext is sent to the server. The server only has the ciphertext, which is uniform random. The server then adds some integer mod 5 to the ciphertext, producing a new ciphertext, and sends it back to the user. The user then subtracts their key from the new ciphertext to obtain the new plaintext, which is their original plaintext plus the number the server added.

At no point in this process did the server learn anything about the user’s plaintext.

This is clearly secure.

It is also useless, because just adding a number isn’t a useful thing for a server to do (they may as well just send the user the number and let them add it themselves), but that’s because it is a toy example.

I suppose if mind uploading were possible, then under FHE it would in principle be possible to take the ciphertext and run the computation of “this mind upload of this person reads the data and provides some output”, and then presumably that uploaded person would have the experience of seeing the plaintext? But it wouldn’t be possible to get any information about the plaintext without the key (or enough brute force to find the key, but that’s why we use big enough keys to make this infeasible).

filup 19 minutes ago||
What does that have to do with incpa?

I send this server a question encrypted. It stays encrypted yet the server distinguished my ciphertext enough to produce a coherent reply. That means there was enough information in the ciphertext for the server to perform the inference, even if it was obscured to where it looks indistinguishable, it apparently wasn't.

This doesn't remove trust from the equation, it puts the trust directly on the algorithm. Probably one no one can explain to me like I'm 5. But because it's encrypted I am no longer breaking the law by processing on protected data. I imagine very large contracts await on the other side. Lots of money to be made.