0x1A yo ; verifying things, for reasons... ; organized TYPED Floripa ; prev SRE @bookingcom and Rust & cryptography @opactprotocol
Floripa
Joined July 2020
- Tweets8.6K
- Following1.4K
- Followers857
- Likes2K
Pinned Tweet
hand-coding shit was fun, same as solving a sudoku. if you were motivated by solving logic puzzles as a day job then i understand why you feel miserable. solution? subscribe to NYT Games
I realized I'm motivated by hate for software and I'll only stop once it stops sucking
antigravity has no auto-mode? brings me back to one year ago when everyone was typing `--dangerously-skip-permissions`
young men's guide to playing the game in the age of AI
> spend your days developing formal semantics for programming languages
> go deep into debt by buying tokens for proving the correctness of critical software
> save humanity from a cybersecurity collapse by developing inviolable sandboxes, containing rogue agent swarms
> i guess avoiding a disaster doesn't make the headlines (anthropic bias or smth)
> everybody uses your software without realizing cuz claude 1-shots regurgitating it from the training set
> die poor and unacknowledged
> spend eternity in limbo cuz god isn't real
using decide instead of native_decide is quite dumb (during development, not CI): you spend way more compute and memory and even if native was ever to prove False that would be nice — you found a reproducible lean compiler bug by running CI
i'm starting to figure out how to make bait: just say smth interpretable in many ways (don't recommend it tho, too much noise)
what inspired me to post this was precisely that argon 4 was already doing some stuff related to nuclear fusion, so in fact i was being disingenuous
ppl saying that AI finding solutions with weird coefficients suddenly means that math being elegant was human bias and that's about to go away are missing the point
(or rather they are "directionally correct", as our sycophantic pals say :)
1. it was already the case before AI (see polymath).
it's often an artifact of analytical approaches getting to some results quicker than closed-form ones. sooner or later these constants will improve until they are meaningful, or we will find another approach which foregoes them entirely. you don't get to reject a result cuz it's complicated, you stay intrigued until it's digestible
2. math is not arbitrary formal sentences. it's what we as humans find meaningful amongst this infinite space of truth values and proofs. beauty is compression which is understanding which is the goal in itself. it's a tautology, not bias (see "compression is all you need").
- polymathprojects.org
- arxiv.org/abs/2603.20396
- errata: turns out the budden paper was not really insightful, who could've guessed? lesson learned.
