The alpha, twice a week
That was 2 min.
Get the best new moments in your inbox every Wednesday and Saturday. It's free.
Check your inbox
We sent a link to your address. Click it to finish signing up. Not there in a minute? Look in spam.
or
MTS · 2 min · Oct 31, 2026
Verification should match the cost of a failure
Tudor Achim argues that verification should scale with the cost of failure, not be universal.
In this episode
Full episode- 2:41Formal verification proves specific bug classes are absent4 min
- 6:24C code becomes verifiable by modeling its operations in math3 min
- 13:09Critical infrastructure faces bridge-scale cybersecurity risk3 min
- 10:22Verification should match the cost of a failure2 min
“if the worst thing that happens to your code is you just restart your web server, maybe you don't have to verify it.”
Takeaways
- A restartable web server may not justify formal verification.
- Companies will choose how much assurance they can afford.
- Prioritize aviation, chips and software affecting lives, finances or security.
About this segment
Tudor Achim argues that verification should scale with the cost of failure, not be universal. He points to aviation and chip tape-outs, where errors can endanger lives or cost hundreds of millions.
Tudor Achim is cofounder and CEO of Harmonic.
Theo Jaffee, Host · Co-founder & host, MTS
One of the first members of a16z's new media team; earlier hosted the Emergent Ventures-backed Theo Jaffee Podcast.
Sophia Dew, Host · Host, MTS
From “One Bug Fixes Most C Code Vulnerabilities | Tudor Achim”, Oct 31, 2026. Watch the full episode
Thanks. We'll look at and fix what's off.
Transcript
Transcribed by machine (Whisper) from the episode’s audio, so a word may be off here and there.
- 10:26
do you see the future of for example right now most code that is written is ai generated do you see the future is just going to be ai not only writing the code but also verifying the code when it's publishing it i think that there it's a little more subtle than that i think that there's this meme on Twitter right now that all code, you know, must be verified. You know, our mission is to verify all software. But the reality is if the worst thing that happens to your code is you just restart your web server, maybe you don't have to verify it. Maybe the ROI isn't there. In the same way, if you look at some of the recent results of verifying binary code, that's a very expensive way to check code. And almost all security vulnerabilities come from human error, not compiler error. So I think actually the future is more nuanced. I think companies will determine
- 11:12
how much they're willing to pay for verification to what level they want that level, to what level they want the assurance. And there's gonna be a lot of products that span that. It's not just gonna be a black or white, you know, either you verified your code and it's right or it's not verified and it's totally wrong. Yeah, and exactly what you mentioned for some of these companies, the worst thing that happens is the page reloads.
- 11:31
What are the specific types of use cases, companies, industries that you think it's essential that they're verifying their code? Well, as a consumer who flies on airplanes, I'd love for plain software to be verified, you know. Well, great point there. I think we should expect any piece of software that, you know, might cause danger to human life or finances or cybersecurity. I think it's got to be verified.
- 11:57
And then if you go to chip. I mean, people that are building inference chips, training chips, etc. If you have a tape out failure, you're paying hundreds of millions of dollars to TSMC, if not more. So I think in these areas, you know, again, where the cost of failure is a lot more than just restarting a server, you're probably going to want to verify the code. Yeah, it's pretty interesting right now.