dcre

The fact that there is not even a sentence explaining why it's a fork, i.e., how it differs from the original, suggests this was only on the front page because of the name. Kinda dumb!

Note that they define “more software” by “more tickets closed.” Make of that what you will. They argue that this is a good measure because the scope of tickets did not increase. Worth considering whether you believe this captures what they claim it does. Are the extra tests you write thanks to coding agents represented in the tickets for your work?

“But all that extra code doesn’t translate directly into improved software output on the firm level. On the contrary, the resolution rate for Issues and Epics (i.e. wholesale software features) tracked by tools like Jira did not change in a statistically significant way after AI tools were introduced (the researchers also found no “compositional shift” in the size or complexity of those Jira-tracked issues across the AI introduction).”

This is exactly why we have the materials process and the materials are the primary filter. It’s one identical artifact we can all look at.

Sorry to come off a little abrupt!

Not quite — the formal statement of the problem in Lean may be correct, and therefore the Lean proof gives quite a lot of confidence that the statement is true. It's just that the proof given in natural language doesn't necessarily match up with the Lean proof, so the natural language proof might be unsound even though the statement it's proving is true.

The version in the acknowledgements is the one you want:

> An Anthropic employee used an internal research model to investigate open problems in the theory of cryptography. One of them was about cryptographic constructions based on the average-case hardness of Zero-k-Clique [LLV19, AHY25]. Claude was tasked with verifying and improving the constructions, but instead developed this algorithm, first for the average case, then for the worst case. The session used 16M output tokens with no human input.

> Anthropic shared the algorithm with the authors in September 2026 under a confidentiality agreement, offered compensation, and provided access to the public version of Claude.

No it doesn't.

Agent harnesses I think will usually look at it. Chat is much less inclined to do tool calls. Though it seems like both OpenAI and Anthropic are trying to close this gap by merging an agentic product into chat.

$200 a month is what people pay for morning coffee in the Bay Area.

What is stopping anyone from finding the value they would have found before?

Worth noting they claim they did not choose the line of attack. Of course we don’t know whether that is true.

“Not every one of those 11,970 carries the same weight, and the paper is careful about that rather than rounding it up.”

AAUGH IT BURNS