Deep Tech Solutions. Hardware. Software. #AI, classical, #quantum, Designer of Fidelity Framework (formerly https://xitter.cf/t.co/7CPvPpBTD4). #cleflang #formalmethods
United States
Joined August 2025
- Tweets2.5K
- Following305
- Followers169
- Likes5.2K
Braidpoint retweeted
The fact that people watched this movie and fell for her shtick is exactly how Elizabeth Holmes was valued at billions of dollars for a scam product that couldn't work.
Braidpoint retweeted
So some elaboration on this -
ETH is a much stronger statement than P≠NP. It's a bit surprising that it's not true but it doesn't really break much.
The bounds are technically sub-exponential, but "2^n / complicated log sqrt expression" is still very close to exponential.
Given how well SAT solvers work in practice, and have for decades, some slightly tighter bounds aren't extremely surprising. There are SAT solvers which have been proven to be <O(2^n) for a long time, just with exponents smaller than 2.
What this amounts to is that for any function O(k^n), there's some algorithm that can do better than any value k, if you make n absurdly big. That's a cute result, but we already knew that many NP problems are easier to solve in practice than in theory, and n really doesn't need to be very big for this to be a pretty meaningless statement in practice.
Ultimately though, and this is something I have some unpublished work on myself that I need to get out there soon, the difficulty of NP problems really has dramatically more to do with the structure of the problem than it does the number of variables. You can have small NP problems that are almost as hard as brute force, and you can have others with millions of variables that can be solved quickly. With NP problems in particular, it's clear that the tools we're applying are simply dramatically too primitive to understand what's actually going on.
The computer science collaboration will understand and explain a result concerning the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH), a longstanding conjecture about the computational complexity of Boolean formula satisfiability, a problem deeply related to the P vs. NP problem.
Surprisingly, our system has recently proved that the ETH is false, a result that was subsequently verified in Lean.
The refutation of the ETH reopens questions about how much faster these tasks could become, and may help guide the search for better algorithms. Finding such algorithms, and turning theoretical advances into practical improvements, will require significant further research.
Our system found its natural language disproof for the ETH we reached out to to @rrwilliams. Ryan will form a collaboration with Russell Impagliazzo and Ramamohan Paturi to verify and shepherd this result. Impagliazzo and Paturi, along with Francis Zane, are the original proposers of the Exponential Time Hypothesis, and Williams has refuted strong versions of the ETH, used ETH for hardness results, and connected algorithms and lower bounds.
This group asked us to make all raw data of the results public to facilitate independent verification by the community, which we have done by posting the natural language proof and Lean formalization to our GitHub repo. The group also invites the community to help organize an open examination of the ETH claim and to discuss the broader questions that AI-generated breakthroughs raise about verification, access, credit, and the future of research.
github.com/openai/math/blob/…
Braidpoint retweeted
i own a relatively new (2025) samsung tv.
i kept getting weirdly targeted ads.
i tried reversing the firmware but it was aes encrypted and no keys unless tear it apart and do uart/jtag magic.
zero days it is. root shell on new samsung TVs!
discovered PRIVACY HORROR. write up?
Braidpoint retweeted
Developers have always had the option of creating their own engine. Now it’s going to get a lot easier, especially for games with simpler needs. There are also permissively licensed alternatives like Godot. Everyone should do whatever is best for their particular game.
Braidpoint retweeted
"Over 1000 carriage drivers vow never to buy a car"
Where we take that lineage with #cleflang: keep routine obligations automatic, build specialist proofs on the foundations it established in Rocq/Iris, and check the evidence against the binary emitted to each target. clef-lang.com/blog/between-a…
Good to see this work in Lean. The refinement shape (big-step results iff the machine halts, divergence preserved) is CompCert's semantic preservation. Verified machine-code interpreters go back to Myreen's HOL4 LISP work in 2009, and CakeML and Islaris already reach RISC-V.
The real rub with "vibe verification" is that the choice of what to prove is arbitrary. In #cleflang, no model or user chooses what to prove in our tiered proof automation. Obligations 'fall out' of types and operations in the graph, and premises are checked for satisfiability.
Agreed, and constraint theory decides what you get. In #cleflang, Kennedy's units of measure solve in an abelian group, so inference is decidable and principal. By contrast, dependent types admit arbitrary predicates, so a person has to finish the proof. clef-lang.com/docs/internals…
I consider Samsung foldables my only phone choice. I've been on Z Fold and Z Flips since v3. This is my next phone. 💯 (my spouse is a dedicated iPhone person and is holding out for end of year holidays to see what surfaces in Duo prices)
"Close to 60% proved something other than what the author meant. Not wrong proofs. Wrong specs."
We spent fifty years making proofs impossible to fake. Then we let the coding agent pick what to prove.
A research paper this month put a number on it.* AI wrote the formal spec, AI wrote the proof, the verifier accepted both. Then humans read the specs. Close to 60% proved something other than what the author meant. Not wrong proofs. Wrong specs.
The verifier was right every time. That's the problem. Left to choose, the agent picks properties that are easy to prove and say nothing about the program, and the checker can't tell a useless theorem from a useful one. I'm calling it vibe verification: the agent writes the spec and the proof, the checker goes green, nobody reads the spec. This applies to Verus, Lean, Bend, TLA+, Dafny, [insert favorite formal language here].
Here's an example of an agent failing at something that feels too simple to fail:
Ask for a verified sort. It writes a spec that says "the output is sorted" and proves it. What the spec never says is that the output has the same elements as the input, so a function that returns an empty list satisfies it, and the verifier accepts the proof. Trivially satisfiable specs are the default failure, not an edge case.
Here's a formula that actually works. Don't say "formally verify the codebase." Say "show that [property] holds in [component]." A property is a precondition (true going in), a postcondition (true coming out), or an invariant (stays true the whole time).
For example, "A session token is never accepted after the logout that revoked it" is a good invariant.
The bottleneck is moving from code review to intent review, and the spec is where intent lives. So: read the spec before the code. Write 3 inputs it must accept and 3 it must reject. Treat a model-written spec with utmost paranoia and rely on your judgement as an engineer.
Formal verification for software doesn't automatically create trust, it moves it, from the code to the spec. If a human didn't read the spec, you didn't verify anything. You vibe-verified it.
Follow me for more on verification and agentic engineering.
* Wang, Jiang, Liu et al., "VerusEval: Evaluating LLM-Generated Verus Specifications Beyond Verifier Acceptance", Shenzhen University, arXiv 2610.26464, October 2026
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The paper used Llama and ChatGPT-4o, a 2.5 year old model that's not even available anymore. The tweet is 100% ai generated.
pangram: x.com/AndrewNWest/st…
Braidpoint retweeted
I swear to god if I hear another person on this app talk about the mainstream media while mainlining the disinfo slop on here all day, I’m going to lose my mind
What about CVC5/Rocq with Iris/Actris/Aneris making appearances? arxiv.org/abs/2610.12911
I depends on what you mean by "program". Syntax is fungible. How about a structure that starts with Wadler's "types are proofs" and node level obligations fall out of the graph 'for free'? arxiv.org/abs/2603.25414
Braidpoint retweeted
1/ Agent-driven formal verification isn't a panacea. But it's damn close. And now we have the empirical data to back it up.
Using blinded agents, we compared formal verification against traditional code review. The results may shock you.
Hate to say it - but the math was always there... arxiv.org/abs/2603.18104