> This is what most programmers do. They type raw text into the editor; the compiler either processes it into structured data, or returns an error the programmer has to internalise before resubmitting.

In the 1980s structural editors were quite popular (fe the basic editor in the ZX81). Using these, it is impossible for the programmer to create text that is not a valid program.

Related:

https://cybercat.institute/2025/05/07/neural-alchemy/

https://cybercat.institute/2026/02/20/categorical-semantics-...

https://cybercat.institute/2025/10/16/dependent-optics-ii/

> The reason I put off starting the series for so long is one of the same reasons blocking the writing of the paper: some of the introductory material is some of the most difficult to write. It has been such a long time that I no longer know how to adequately explain why the problem is so difficult.

My sympathies to Jules

So the model generates code, and let's say it is wrongly typed, we then take the rightly typed version and use cross entropy between them? Is that right? That just sounds like the typical training, unless you can somehow take arbitrary code that the model generated and automatically find the rightly typed version, so you won't need a dataset for it

I'm not sure what to make of TFA (I don't have time right now to investigate in details, but the subject it interesting). It starts with saying you can stop generation as soon as you have an output that can't be completed -- and there's already more advanced techniques that do that. If your language is typed, then you can use a "proof tree with a hole" and check whether there's a possible completion of that tree. References are "Type-Constrained Code Generation with Language Models" and "Statically Contextualizing Large Language Models with Typed Holes".

Then it switches to using an encoding that would be more semantic, but I think the argument is a bit flimsy: it compares chess to the plethora of languages that LLM can spout somewhat correct code for (which is behind the success of this generally incorrect approach). What I found more dubious is that it brushed off syntactical differences to say "yeah but they're all semantically equivalent". Which, it seems to me, is kind of the main problem about this; basically any proof is an equivalence of two things, but it can be arbitrarily complicated to see it. If we consider this problem solved, then we can get better things, sure...

I think without some e.g. Haskell PoC showing great results these methods will have a hard time getting traction.

Please correct any inaccuracies or incomprehension in this comment!