
People say CUDA is a moat, but if you stare into this moat, it's an abyss with lovecraftian horrors in it. People say the moat is deep, and man, technically it is a great old one.
Suha
1.2K posts

@suhackerr
Opinions not representative of my employer

People say CUDA is a moat, but if you stare into this moat, it's an abyss with lovecraftian horrors in it. People say the moat is deep, and man, technically it is a great old one.


A bugfix in today's pre-release allows us to perform floating point maths using cloud height. Someone (Triton365) has already implemented a square root approximation using 93 (!) bezier curves. ☁️Cloud computation is coming to Minecraft!



1/4 LLMs solve research grade math problems but struggle with basic calculations. We bridge this gap by turning them to computers. We built a computer INSIDE a transformer that can run programs for millions of steps in seconds solving even the hardest Sudokus with 100% accuracy











blog post — electric-sql.com/blog/2026/02/0…

I know dozens of great engineers coding full-time who haven’t written a line of code manually in 6 months. There’s zero exaggeration or hyperbole in that.

So, with Bend2's launch incoming, I'm struggling a bit with the branding. The coolest feature of Bend2 is that it is built from scratch around the idea that we, humans, will stop maintaining codebases. Instead, we write specs - i.e., what we want, as *precise types* - and the AI does the coding, and then *proves that it is correct*. In other words, Bend2 is a way to use vibe coding when you can't risk having bugs at all, and that's something that doesn't exist today. Problem is: Bend1 has already been "marketed" as a language centered around parallelism, and *that is true for Bend2 too*. It will be able to run on GPUs, and will solve most of the Bend1's limitations (2 GB memory, 24-bit numbers, no IO, ultra strict evaluator, etc.). Now, the thing is: how do we market that? Do we talk about all the updated parallelism features? Or do we keep the communication simple and focus about the "vibe coding without bugs" thing? If we talk too much, it may look like feature bloat and not really click to many people. But if we focus only on the AI proof system, it may look like we're completely dropping the old features, which isn't the case. I also wonder if we should rebrand it as ProofScript... "So what is your codebase written in?" "ProofScript!" "Wait what's that?" "Oh it is like TypeScript but we can write these super precise specs and the code is only accepted if the AI proves mathematically the specs are fulfilled. It is super nice because we can vibe code all we want without worrying the AI will break things. You should try it!" "Uh sorry JavaScript is too slow for my serious bank code" "Oh no it compiles to C, and even runs on the GPU if you want to" "Wait what" Hmm I don't know...



Recently I gave a talk on LLMs for Math Research (mostly to an audience of pure and applied mathematicians) I tried to compile the latest progress in one presentation pdf and video recording: drive.google.com/drive/folders/…