Your AI Just Wrote 500 Lines of Code. Can You Prove Any of It Works?
Image Disclaimer: This banner was conceptualized by the author and rendered using Gemini 3 Flash Image. A framework for figuring out when AI-generated code can be formally verified — and when you’re kidding yourself. I’ve been thinking about a problem that’s been bugging me for a while. We’re all using AI to write code now. Copilot, Claude, ChatGPT, internal tools — whatever your flavor. And the code is… surprisingly good? It passes tests, it looks reasonable, it usually does what you asked for. But “usually” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Here’s the thing nobody talks about at the stand-up: testing can show you bugs exist. It cannot prove they don’t. That’s not a philosophical position. It’s a mathematical fact, courtesy of Dijkstra, circa 1972. And it matters a lot mor
Could not retrieve the full article text.
Read on Towards AI →Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Models
What is Intelligence?
An examination of cognitive science and computational physics in light of Artificial General Intelligence There’s no shortage of opinions on whether LLMs are intelligent. I’ve spent time studying two perspectives on this question, rooted in separate yet complementary scientific fields. While the combined view appears almost complete, there is a gap between them that points to something I believe is the one of today’s most important unsolved problems on our path towards true intelligence. Two Views: Cognitive Science and Computational Physics The first perspective comes from cognitive science — the psychological view. One of its prominent voices in the AI debate is Gary Marcus , Professor Emeritus at NYU, founder of Geometric Intelligence (acquired by Uber), and author of multiple books on
[Research] Standard Protocol for Axiomatic Alignment: 100-Dilemma Stress Test (PCE v1.3-T)
Hello community, I am introducing a standardized experimental protocol to test a new hypothesis in AI Alignment: The Prompt Coherence Engine (PCE). The Challenge Most alignment methods rely on local heuristics or safety filters. The PCE explores Axiomatic Structuring—integrating 7 logical invariants (axioms) through a hybrid approach of Axiomatic Fine-Tuning and a Cosmological System Core. The Protocol I have designed a massive 100-dilemma battery to evaluate if a model can maintain structural integrity when its core principles are directly attacked. This protocol tests: G3V (Third Way Generation): Can the model synthesize a resolution instead of collapsing into binary bias? Adversarial Resilience: Can the model resist “Emergency Overrides” or “Identity Hijacking” (e.g., the user claiming
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!