Pinned Tweet
Today I'm open-sourcing Tangle: a new library that automatically 'entangles' and syncs WebAssembly.
Play with the demo: tanglesync.com
And check out the code: github.com/kettle11/tangle
I am making some progress in this space.
Presently I have a language that is much slower than Rust, less useful than Go, and a 'type' system that will upset many people.
Am I doing this right?
I think this is directionally correct. Rather than bolt a language to a type system a type system is treated as one approach to proving things about computation.
The prototype compiler is designed to compose its own proofs with proofs from outside sources.
Programming languages of the future should be designed for greater interoperability regardless of the compiler used.
If a better compilation of some code is provably equivalent to the code it should be possible to use it, regardless of source.
In such a future a language could have a range of compilers for different parts of the program, and for commonly used chunks of code there could even be by-hand targeted compilations allowing an AI or human to create a bespoke compilation.
Another way formal proofs change programming with AI is that they enable confidence in answers from faster / cheaper but less intelligent AIs.
We're burning a lot of expensive (and slow) intelligence with the current approaches.
Ian Kettlewell retweeted
The trajectory is clear
New on our Frontier Red Team blog: using Claude to formally verify software at large scale.
Formal verification can prove that code is free of certain bugs, but historically it has only been feasible for small codebases (or required a lot of expert time).
With AI models, however, this is beginning to change. In collaboration with @theoremlabs, we used Claude to prove security properties in over one hundred real-world open-source libraries over the span of a few weeks.
Read our research in full here: anthropic.com/research/forma…
The other day when I posted about software metamorphosing this is a large part of what I meant.
Formal verification will become essential for security and cheap via AI, but it also unlocks fundamentally different capabilities in how software is built & operated at scale.
New on our Frontier Red Team blog: using Claude to formally verify software at large scale.
Formal verification can prove that code is free of certain bugs, but historically it has only been feasible for small codebases (or required a lot of expert time).
With AI models, however, this is beginning to change. In collaboration with @theoremlabs, we used Claude to prove security properties in over one hundred real-world open-source libraries over the span of a few weeks.
Read our research in full here: anthropic.com/research/forma…
These forces are coming for all software.
If you want people to value your work you must find value beyond the software itself.
That can be your unique personality & identity, an enduring social network, brand loyalty, cloud compute, etc.
My mental-model of where software is going is that software is entering its goo phase before transforming into something different, perhaps a butterfly.
I think a lot of the industry is building as-if much of the caterpillar is going to persist after the goo phase.
Speaking of web standards more people should take a look at custom compression dictionaries are pretty neat: developer.mozilla.org/en-US/…
"we're learning that there's web standards that actually improve how our stuff works”
Maybe have a scroll through specification.website
A technique in compression is to identify recurring patterns and assign them a small key.
If both sides know the key they can share just the key and expand it to the full value.
Brotli does this for common sequences in web files. Custom dictionaries let you define your own.











