pinevale

Formal verification against what?

The elusive 100%-coverage formal spec that covers every intended and unintended input, the interests of every stakeholder, and every possible user behavior? In the vibecoding era? No, the page has the decency to acknowledge this doesn't exist.

In the end, they settle on finding crashes with a conventional fuzzer, fixing crashes, and then... writing a formal proof that the crash is fixed? That seems... pretty pointless? Am I missing something here?

You're missing my point. A very good fake of van Gogh can sell at an auction for a lot of money, but if the new owner finds out, they're not gonna be happy. The same applies here: AI entries would not have won most of these contests if it was known that it's AI (discounting the handful of contests that were actually meant for AI literature and are weird to include on the list).

"Scarcity" is a really bad theory of this, and the NFT bros have already tested how that works out.

My point is that the value of most human art derives from something more than the arrangement of pixels / bits, and if we disregard this, we end up in a pretty shitty world.

I wouldn't interpret the chart as indicative of the gains in the quality of AI writing; it's more that it's a fairly new phenomenon and there is a dramatic increase in people who try to smuggle AI stories into contests (be it for personal gratification or to "show" human writers), and an increase in the scrutiny that submissions receive.

Fundamentally, I know that HN has plenty of people who will react with "ha-ha, human authors should pack their bags", just like what we keep telling mathematicians, because we see the discipline as just another market that can be conquered by automation or another benchmark to track. But literature, similarly to most other forms of higher-brow entertainment, isn't just about reducing unit-cost or hacking engagement metrics. For the same reason why a genuine van Gogh painting is worth a lot more than a nearly-perfect replica, people who care about the craft usually care about it telling genuine human stories and celebrating the author as much as the result.

Now, the mass consumer may not care; if you have an infinite Harry Potter sequel machine, many will partake. But then, I guess the question is, if you build the sequel machine, are you leaving the world better off or not? Do you want to be interacting exclusively with machines down the line? And if there's no inherent value to humanity, why should the machines be compelled to interact with you?

> What is today a moral imperative is not the same as what was moral 50/100 years ago and is not the same as what will be morally acceptable 50/100 years from now.

This is a weird take. If you read Western treatises about ethics / morality from 50 years ago, you'll be hard-pressed to find differences, except that more folks in the West openly embrace relativism nowadays (i.e., "there's no objective morality, the purpose of life is to make money with friends"). Probably because it's been a while since we had a clear-cut enemy to fight.

If you go back a hundred years, chances are, you'll find the writing eerily on-point too. In fact, you'd probably agree with most of what Ancient Greeks believed about the "core" stuff: the value and purpose of human life, the nature of the state, crime and punishment, so on. Maybe not so much on gender roles or slavery, but even that stuff was more nuanced than we imagine.

> But the machine has the benefit of being able to look inward at its state honestly, we mostly do not.

The machine replicates human behaviors and is prone to similar fallacies and judgments. There's nothing to indicate that it has any sort of transhuman morality.

Yeah, wealth has legs, and we increasingly have this wealth meta-economy where different states are good at producing wealthy people (CA, NY) and different states are good at giving them a hospitable place to live. Sources and sinks.

This is probably good in some sense - you can argue that it's not healthy for states like CA to "own" so much of GDP end-to-end - but I wonder where this leads us in a couple of decades. Does it continue to be like this, or does it mean that more tech hubs pop up elsewhere because in the long haul, people probably prefer to work and invest close to home?

A big problem is that some of these places - e.g., Wyoming - don't have the higher-ed infrastructure that would foster new startups and high-tech research. On the flip side, California is now importing most of its entrepreneurs anyway.

There's also another sticky, malleable substance that could work for this analogy...

But more seriously: the question, the same as before, is "what are you going to sculpt". Sculpting for the sake of sculpting achieves nothing, and if it's too cheap and too easy, it can cost you time and money than if you had to pause and think beforehand.

I implore you to look at the past several months of vibecoded games and Github projects submitted to HN. It's amazing that you can prototype something in hours. It's bleak when you realize that half of these projects weren't even working properly - we often upvote based on vibes too - and are now abandoned in a half-broken state because the author has no attachment to it whatsoever. It was just some money exchanged for internet points.

There's no doubt that we're going to have more software; I think it's very much an open question whether there's going to be more good software, or more software that can make money.

Except because it's some sort of a vibecoded atrocity, nothing happens if you try to toggle from "all" to "last 3 days", it only works if you change the value (e.g., to 2 or 4 days).

Stuff like that is really frustrating because it's not like we didn't have one zillion decent, human-tested graphing frameworks before.

I've seen many posts like this. None of them stood the test of time. Ease is irrelevant because you only need expertise once and then everyone can reuse the result.

It's also not easy to pop an iPhone, but reliable, weaponized exploits are available in trade and governments use them in a plug-and-play way.

BioWare hasn't published a successful game in a very long time. Their last releases were Anthem (2019) and DA: Veilguard (2024), both of which tapped into the studio's reputation but underperformed in the long haul. Veilguard was also so "meh" against the backdrop of Baldur's Gate 3 that it probably harmed the brand and the franchise more than if it never came out.

They basically used to make amazing games in the 2000s and never quite lived up to that reputation again. Whether the acquisition by EA was the cause or the symptom of the decline, I don't know.

> It's not exactly uncommon, it's basically C's equivalent to exceptions.

longjmp is very uncommon, I don't recall seeing any high-quality C codebase using it, and if you want exceptions, you should pick a different language because longjmp doesn't really give you comparable semantics. It's basically saying "ok, computer, f--k my s--t up".

The fact that OOM conditions are an enduring source of exploitable vulnerabilities in PHP really should give everyone a pause. Like, that's not a thing in any sane project.

> And they botched this as someone talked. To me this looks like they used this for a PR stunt and aimed for an RCE.

This is a pretty constant theme in the infosec industry. The idea is that you want to do the "responsible" thing and let all the major, multi-billion-dollar companies patch first, so you form a secret club. But then, you share a very juicy, gossip-worthy thing with hundreds of people and ask them to sit on it for weeks. And guess what happens: they don't. Having worked for a big tech company, I've been involved on a couple of processes of this sort, and they all suffered leaks.

And rest assured, we'll learn nothing and try the same thing again next month or next year. Because what's the alternative? If you 0-day everyone, you get more hate mail, not less. It's all of sudden about you, not the vulnerable code. Microsoft or Cloudflare calls you irresponsible when asked for a PR statement, industry bloggers bully you, etc.

Linear rankings like this are often misleading because the difference of 10 spots on the list may be very minor in absolute terms.

I don't think there's a single factor. Oregon is fairly rural, poor, and has a huge substance abuse problem, which likely factors in. It's probably the same thing that's happening in Nevada.

> AI isn’t eating SaaS. It’s eating shitty businesses.

AI isn't even eating most shitty SaaS businesses, because it's a weird HN fantasy that your hairdresser or car mechanic are itching to manage agent swarms and risk losing their business if that unnecessary adventure goes sideways. They would much rather pay several hundred bucks for a SaaS product that has a bunch of UI annoyances.

It's likely that there will be an explosion in vibecoded competitors to existing SaaS products, but I wouldn't underestimate the importance of familiarity and stability. I use a bunch of SaaS stuff for my business and it's not like I do a weekly comparative analysis to see if switching to some unfamiliar platform that popped up overnight could save me a bit of money or time. It's just not worth it.