HN generally forbids asking whether a commenter has read the article, so it's useful that you straight up admit it. you probably should read it before you ask a comment though, because as it stands, your question is not even wrong.

the blog describes a methodology for building trust in LLM-authored semantics by also proving that the semantics abstract the behaviours of a concrete binary interpreter. This pitches a way to turn compute into building useful semantics. I have no idea what or why you believed there was a relation to rust.

> HN generally forbids asking whether a commenter has read the article, so it's useful that you straight up admit it.

Nitpick, he claims he started reading it but could not finish. I also started reading it but did not finish (due to time, not the academic nature of the prose).

I'm not sure it was completely LLM-written, but it certainly wasn't as grating on the nerves like most LLM prose.

> I have no idea what or why you believed there was a relation to rust.

TBH, I had the same question myself :-/