HN user

eab-

67 karma
Posts1
Comments19
View on HN

Honestly I expect it's just annoyed devs getting annoyed about the ratelimits on plans and post-hoc justifying. Now that Codex has far more capacity and their slot machine makes better outcomes (note: I am a heavy LLM-assisted coder) they feel like they have to justify their felt animosity towards these companies

Welcome to Gas City 3 months ago

is there examples of the sort of things that's been built with these systems? it often feels like complication and abstraction for its own sake

We have proofs that are gigabytes (I believe even terabytes in some cases) in size, but we know they are correct because they check in Lean.

I'm not aware of any of these. There's some SAT-like results that were not verified in Lean at that sort of scale, but Lean proofs of individual problems are nowhere near that. For example, Mathlib (think a Lean4 math stdlib) is 6GB including compilation artifacts, and iirc <100MB text.

There's both "no multi-program system" and "multi-program system", depending on how you look at it. In reality, you're always executing the same machine code, itself has no awareness of programs.

The notifications aren't great, and the non-e-ink screen is a bit annoying. Also the low amount of physical buttons.

But as someone who bought an OG Pebble and now has a Vivoactive 3, I think the fitness features are too nice to switch back fully to Pebble. Although I'll be very glad to see Pebble back!

Just insist on Lean (or some other formal verifier) proofs for everything

Lean is too inflexible for this, in my opinion. Maybe I'm not dreaming big enough, but I think there'll have to be one more big idea to make this possible; I think the typeclass inference systems we use these days are a severe bottleneck, for one, and I think it's very, very tedious to state some things in Lean (my go-to example is the finite-dimensionality of modular forms of level 1 - the contour integral is a bitch and has a lot of technicalities)