Turns out this species - the Rocky Mountain locust was made accidentally extinct by settlers. Although the swarms could be huge, they had a small and concentrated breeding ground that was destroyed by farming and cows. Wikipedia says the last specimen was collected in 1904.

>> At a certain point, the verification complexity takes off. You literally run out of time to verify everything. > Could you elaborate on this?

I plan to publish a thorough post with an interactive model. Whether human or AI, you are capacity constrained, and I glossed over `C` (capacity within a given timeframe) in the X post.

You are correct that verification complexity remains finite at n_0. The barrier is practical: n_0 is where V(n) exceeds your available capacity C. If V(n) = n^(1+k), then n_0 = C^(1/(1+k)). Doubling your capacity doesn't double n_0. It increases by a factor of 2^(1/(1+k)), which is always less than 2.

So the barrier always exists for, say, a given "dev year" or "token budget," and the cost to push it further grows superlinearly. It's not absolutely immovable, but moving it gets progressively harder. That's what I mean by "literally run out of time." At any given capacity, there is a finite n beyond which complete verification is not possible. Expanding capacity buys diminishing returns.

> Either way, this entire discussion assumes n will increase as more and more software gets written by AI. Couldn't it also be the opposite, though?

You are getting at my core motivation for exploring this question.

Verification requires a definition of "done" and I wonder if it will ever be possible (or desirable) for AI to define done on its own, let alone verify it and simplify software based on its understanding of our needs.

You make a great point that we are not required to add more components and "go right" along the curve. We can choose to simplify, and that is absolutely the right takeaway. AI has made many people believe that by generating more code at a faster pace they are accomplishing more. But that's not how software productivity should be judged.

To answer your question about assumptions, while AI can certainly be prompted to help reduce n or k in isolated cases where "done" is very clear, I don't think it's realistic to expect this in aggregate for complex systems where "done" is subjective and dynamic.

I'm speaking mainly in the context of commercial software dev here, informed by my lived experience building hundreds of apps. I often say software projects have a fractal complexity. We're constantly identifying new needs and broader scope the deeper we go, not to mention pivots and specific customer asks. You rarely get to stand still.

I don't mean to be pessimistic, but my hunch is that complexity growth outpaces the rate of simplification in almost every software project. This model attempts to explain why that is so. And notably, simplification itself requires verification and so it is in a sense part of the verification cost, too.

As you add components to a system, the time it takes to verify that the components work together increases superlinearly.

At a certain point, the verification complexity takes off. You literally run out of time to verify everything.

AI coding agents hit this barrier faster than ever, because of how quickly they can generate components (and how poorly they manage complexity).

I think verification is now the problem of agentic software engineering. I think formal methods will help, but I don't see how they will apply to messy situations like end-to-end UI testing or interactions between the system and the real world.

I posted more detailed thoughts on X: https://x.com/i/status/2027771813346820349

I have a few deeper posts that I'm proud of. My favorite is an exploration of battle probabilities in the board game war room.

The article uses "development" to refer only to the part where code is generated, while you are saying "development" is the process as a whole.

You both agree that latency in the real-world validation feedback loop leads to longer cycles and fewer promising solutions and that is the bottleneck.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41460587

Points: 37

# Comments: 10

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41187990

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40890837

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

My understanding is that in the DC case, the SREC values are anchored by DC's Solar Alternative Compliance Payment (SACP). This is a penalty energy companies must pay if they don't produce their quota of SRECs. Currently, the penalty is $480 per SREC, so the energy co.s save some money paying $350-400 vs. the penalty.

In tandem with this, DC is small, meaning rooftops are really the only place you can put panels, and DC requires that the SRECs are generated by systems located in DC:

"The D.C. City Council passed a law in July 2011 preventing out-of-state systems registered after January 31, 2011 from participating in the DC SREC Market, further limiting supply."

Source: https://www.srectrade.com/markets/rps/srec/district_of_colum...

This program has benefited me and other DC residents individually, but I would be much more at ease knowing that this is actually globally good policy. I'll admit I don't really know.

Energy companies in DC, are incentivized by the govt to produce energy from renewable sources. They have to pay a penalty for SRECs they fail to produce, so they have good reason to convince consumers to put solar panels on their roofs and then buy SRECs from them at a rate lower than the value of the penalty.

I spent $25k to install solar in 2020 (also in DC like OP). The solar company estimated that my home value increased by $14K.

As part of the install, I bundled a "heavy-up" for $5K, which is an upgrade my house needed, but not strictly part of the renewable energy system. So total cash outlay was $30K.

I immediately got back 26% in a federal tax credit: $7.8K

So on balance, my system cost $8K cash, which was paid down by energy savings and SRECs within three years. The SRECs made the biggest impact.

Without SRECs, we would be losing money. Our SREC payouts have averaged $380/MWh over the past four years. When last I checked, this was by far the best price on offer in the US. I've seen "solar is a scam" posts across the Internet. Given the numbers, I'm inclined to believe that's true wherever SREC prices are below, say, $250/MWh.

I keep a detailed spreadsheet and have been meaning to write a similar blog post. The short story is that we have made more money overall from SRECs than from savings on our monthly bill.

Warning: not a good times film.

But it is beautiful in profound and sad ways. It deepened my appreciation for the good circumstances I have been fortunate to enjoy in my life.

My brother and I were brainstorming ideas for a new wordle-like game recently and we hit upon this same idea. We looked it up and learned that Lewis Carroll "invented" this game back in the 1800s. He called it "Word Ladders."

Personal blog with a handful of tech-oriented posts and a gallery of some of my favorite photos. Haven't posted in a bit, but this thread is motivating. Made with Jekyll, hosted on GitHub pages, with Cloudflare in front. It's super lightweight. My goal is to keep the PageSpeed score at 100.

My personal favorite post is: "Explore JavaScript with Axis & Allies" https://williamhuster.com/explore-js-with-axis-and-allies/

There is some historical evidence that the US dropped leaflets warning about the impending bombings and the atomic bombs specifically. For info, Google "LeMay leaflets." It's also likely that the US made AM radio broadcasts about it. Even so, I'm sure the Japanese citizenry would have regarded it as the enemy propaganda it was and largely ignored the messages. And of course no one could have anticipated or imagined the atomic bombs.