That's literally the opposite of reality; the research and adoption have consistently produced code of extremely high quality, at great cost.
The problem has always been:
- It's extremely labour-intensive, and even small changes to the code can require an enormous amount of new proof work.
- The skills required to formally verify software are very different from the skills required to write it, and the set of people capable of doing so is much smaller.
- Code has to be written with verification in mind, against a specification that expresses invariants that can actually be verified, and that is coherent enough that you can derive useful high-level properties of the system from it.
You needed two teams — verification and development. Verification would always be behind the development team, while also having to feed requirements and design changes back to the developers. Everything slowed to a crawl.
AI changes this. A coherent, verifiable, useful specification isn't easy to write — but it's far easier to write than the software itself, and AI can do most of that work: both drafting the spec and proving that it's consistent and that the high-level properties you actually care about follow from it.
More importantly, a high-level spec is far easier to read and reason about than the reams of code required to actually implement something. Which means:
- AI does the grunt work of writing and proving the spec; humans only have to carefully review that high-level artifact.
- AI writes code it must also prove conforms to the spec, so humans can be assured it's correct without babysitting the AI.
- Changes are driven top-down: evolve the spec first, then have the AI fix the implementation and re-prove conformance.
Our (very, very large) company is rapidly going all-in on formal verification across projects we never would have dreamed of verifying before; the velocity hit and the man-hour cost were only worth paying for truly critical infrastructure.
I ran a company in NYC for six years before the taxes and onerous regulatory environment convinced me to bail.
The final straw was when we had to hire a fixer to clear up a state regulatory error that would’ve destroyed our business. No amount of calls or letters over months — by me — fixed the issue. The guy we hired got it cleared up in a week.
That’s how I learned firsthand that the more involved the state tries to be in protecting everyone from everything, the more opportunity there is for bad actors and gross inefficiency, and the worse things get.
You’re about to tie your names and reputations to this.
I would strongly reconsider pivoting unless you actually want to work for no-name companies and on the shady side of technology for at least the next decade.
I genuinely can’t tell if this is naivety or willful ignorance, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter.
This is in direct violation of the terms of service, and Apple invests a lot of money in keeping iMessage clean of this kind of misuse.
They control the servers, the client, certificate provisioning, hardware identification, and user identification. They can trivially trace a registered account to the point of sale and the card and PII used to buy the hardware on which the account was registered.
You will fly under the radar for just as long as it takes to annoy enough of their customers that Apple brings down a massive ban hammer.
> iMessage is intended for communicating with family and friends, and is not for conducting commercial activities or disseminating unwanted messages. iMessage misuse may result in service limitations.
They developed AppleScript for people to do this individually, at limited scale.
Push notifications, attached to an application or website, and controllable by a user on that basis, are the solution for corporate messaging at scale.
This will get you banned. It’s not a question of if, but when. Users will hit the report spam button. Apple will shut you down.
My existence couldn’t possibly be any more digital, and I can’t remember a single time I’ve had a SMS/RCS conversation with customer service or a scheduling agent. I don’t want to have one either. My message inbox is already full enough.
My iMessages are for conversations with people that I actually want to talk to. The notifications are high priority because it’s with people that I want to talk to.
I can’t imagine my annoyance if I were to receive an iMessage notification while I’m expecting an important message, only to find that it’s more spam.
My email inbox is already a wasteland because of this. The absolute last thing I need or want is for the same thing to happen to iMessage.
Step 1: Vibe-code a buggy, poorly-performing, 500k+ LoC desktop-installed monstrosity in TypeScript to implement a trivial TUI. Proudly note that you’re meeting a 16ms frame budget … for a trivial chat UI.
Step 2: Purchase an entire company for a product that, if you squint, might help paper over the entirely predictable problems that arise from using the wrong tools to implement the wrong architecture, because surely the solution isn’t reevaluating your original engineering choices.
Step 3: Perform a buggy, vibe-code rewrite of the tool you just bought. A tool you only need because — for whatever internal political reasons — sunk cost means you can only keep digging.
Your point is aptly demonstrated by the article — the car may still use tethering via Bluetooth to exfiltrate your data[1]. The workaround of always using a wired connection is both inconvenient and unreliable — the same facility could be added for wired connections at any time.
I would like to see some form of IP/property rights applied to user data, with treble damages for willful infringement.
The entire concept of collecting user data and calling it “telemetry” needs to be abandoned — including (especially) in the software industry. Collecting any user data ought to be something that makes corporate lawyers nervous.
Unfortunately, I expect that to happen roughly after hell freezes over.
[1] I couldn’t confirm that any car currently actually does this. Hypothetically, iPhone tethering is possible over both USB and Bluetooth if personal hotspot is enabled.
State ID (usually a driver’s license) is the defacto universal ID system.
It’s not hard to get, and you need it to do everything from filling a scheduled prescription, buying alcohol, entering a bar, flying on a plane, or purchasing cold medicine. You literally cannot function as an independent adult without one.
You also need to show it — along with a second form of ID — to be hired at a job.
Anyone claiming a state ID requirement meaningfully prevents anyone from voting is being deeply unserious.
If they actually believed what they claim, they’d be campaigning to remove the ID requirements that are already pervasive in our daily lives. They are not.
I’ll also note that buying a gun requires not just multiple forms of ID, but also an entire background check. If we can do that for one constitutionally enumerated right, we can damn well require a photo ID to cast a ballot.