TDD, verification, whatever your tool; verification suites of all sorts accrue over time into a very detailed repository of documentation of how things are supposed to work that, being executable, puts zero tokens in the context when the code is correct.

It’s more powerful than reams upon reams of markdown specs. That’s because it encodes details, not intent. Your intent is helpful at the leading edge of the process, but the codified result needs shoring up to prevent regression. That’s the area software engineering has always ignored because we have gotten by on letting teams hold context in their heads and docs.

As software gets more complex we need better solutions than “go ask Jim about that, bloke’s been in the code for years”.

Right now, we see a lot of business experts in enterprises tempted to use AI to impl. business logic so they don't have to wait for (or pay) software experts. Would this kind of technology help these users any time soon?

My current theory is that the real breakthrough for these non-developers will only happen when they can actually verify the result themselves without needing an another expert in the loop. But I don't see that with formal validation anytime soon.

Do I overlook something?

> Instead of taking a stab in the dark, Leanstral rolled up its sleeves. It successfully built test code to recreate the failing environment and diagnosed the underlying issue with definitional equality. The model correctly identified that because def creates a rigid definition requiring explicit unfolding, it was actively blocking the rw tactic from seeing the underlying structure it needed to match.

Europeans not wanting to be dependent, and they are giving for free what US investors planed to charge with 90% margin.

Amazing! What a blast. Thank you for your service (this first 100M$ burned to POC GPT1 and from here, we are so good to go)

Many comments here point out that Mistral's models are not keeping up with other frontier models - this has been my personal experience as well. However, we need more diversity of model alignment techniques and companies training them - so any company taking this seriously is valuable.

This model is specifically trained on this task and significantly[1] underperforms opus.

Opus costs about 6x more.

Which seems... totally worth it based on the task at hand.

[1]: based on the total spread of tested models

Not sure I really understand the comparisons though. They emphasize the cost savings relative to Haiku, but Haiku kinda sucks at this task, and Leanstral is worse? If you're optimizing for correctness, why would "yeah it sucks but it's 10 times cheaper" be relevant? Or am I misunderstanding something?

On the promising side, Opus doesn't look great at this benchmark either — maybe we can get better than Opus results by scaling this up. I guess that's the takeaway here.

> I'm interested to see what it is in the age of LLMs or similar future tools. I suspect a future phase change might be towards disregarding how easy it is for humans to work with the code and instead focus on provability, testing, perhaps combined with token efficiency.

> Maybe Lean combined with Rust shrunk down to something that is very compiler friendly. Imagine if you could specify what you need in high level language and instead of getting back "vibe code", you get back proven correct code, because that's the only kind of code that will successfully compile.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47192116

I can’t even convince most developers to use model checkers. Far more informal than a full proof in Lean. Still highly useful in many engineering tasks. People prefer boxes and arrows and waving their hands.

Anyway, I don’t know that I’d want to have a system vibe code a proof. These types of proofs, I suspect, aren’t going to be generated to be readable, elegant, and be well understood by people. Like programs they generate it will look plausible.

And besides, you will still need a human to review the proof and make sure it’s specifying the right things. This doesn’t solve that requirement.

Although I have thought that it would be useful to have a system that could prove trivial lemmas in the proof. That would be very neat.

Could definitely be interesting for having another model run over the codebase when looking for improvements

it clearly and demonstrably does not. in fact, from eyeballing their chart Qwen, Kimi, and GLM scale linearly whereas Leanstral does not. But this is not surprising because the Alibaba, Moonshot, and Zhipu have hundreds of employees each and hundreds of millions of dollars of investment each.

  Model        Cost ($) Score
  ..
  Claude Opus     1,650 39.6
  ..
  Leanstral pass@8  145 31.0
  Leanstral pass@16 290 31.9

Mistral seems to focus on a different market than the others. Their best model is meh, their best ASR model locally is either rather slow compared to Parakeet on similar languages, or not as good for others (like qwen ASR).

Side note: Lean seems quite unreadable with tons of single letter variable names. Part of it is me being unaccustomed with it, but still.

There are two compatible and important (but different) questions in play:

1. Is a program correct relative to a formal specification?

2. Is the formal specification what we mean/want?

*: Worth asking: “What that other person necessarily wrong? Or perhaps they are discussing a different aspect or framing?” AKA: “be curious and charitable” I’m not going to link to the specific threads, but they are happened / are happening. Le Sigh.