> "Ill-posed" here means that the formalisms we've chosen to represent "efficient" and "efficiently verifiable" algorithms could turn out to not correspond to anything humans would consider meaningful ("we posed the problem poorly").

OK, that's a reasonable worry and one that practitioners share. Thanks for explaining. Though I don't think ill-posed is a good term for this, the technical meaning of the term points in a different direction.

So far, as far as I can tell this new result gives much of any extra credence to that worry.