Live data from Hacker News

AI will make formal verification go mainstream

martin.kleppmann.com

11–20 of 448 posts

Re: AI will make formal verification go mainstream

#11
I've been trying to convince others of this, and gotten very little traction. One interesting response I got from someone very familiar with the Tamarin prover was that there just wasn't enough example code out there.

Another take is that LLMs don't have enough conceptual understanding to actually create proofs for the correctness of code.

Personally I believe this kind of work is predicated on more ergonomic proof systems. And those happen to be valuable even without LLMs. Moreover the built in guarantees of rust seem like they are a great start for creating more ergonomic proof systems. Here I am both in awe of Kani, and disappointed by it. The awe is putting in good work to make things more ergonomic. The disappointment is using bounded model checking for formal analysis. That can barely make use of the exclusion of mutable aliasing. Kani, but with equational reasoning, that's the way forward. Equational reasoning was long held back by needing to do a whole lot of pointer work to exclude worries of mutable aliasing. Now you can lean on the borrow checker for that!

Re: AI will make formal verification go mainstream

#12
post #2

I'm convinced now that the key to getting useful results out of coding agents (Claude Code, Codex CLI etc) is having good mechanisms in place to help those agents exercise and validate the code they are writing. At the most basic level this means making sure they can run commands to execute the code - easiest with languages like Python, with HTML+JavaScript you need to remind them that Playwright exists and they shou…

Claude Code was a big jump for me. Another large-ish jump was multi-agents and following the tips from Anthropic’s long running harnesses post.

I don’t go into Claude without everything already setup. Codex helps me curate the plan, and curate the issue tracker (one instance). Claude gets a command to fire up into context, grab an issue - implements it, and then Codex and Gemini review independently.

I’ve instructed Claude to go back and forth for as many rounds as it takes. Then I close the session (\new) and do it again. These are all the latest frontier models.

This is incredibly expensive, but it’s also the most reliable method I’ve found to get high-quality progress — I suspect it has something to do with ameliorating self-bias, and improving the diversity of viewpoints on the code.

I suspect rigorous static tooling is yet another layer to improve the distribution over program changes, but I do think that there is a big gap in folk knowledge already between “vanilla agents” and something fancy with just raw agents, and I’m not sure if just the addition of more rigorous static tooling (beyond the compiler) closes it.

Re: AI will make formal verification go mainstream

#13
I buy the economics argument, but I’m not sure “mainstream formal verification” looks like everyone suddenly using Lean or Isabelle. The more likely path is that AI smuggles formal-ish checks into workflows people already accept: property checks in CI, model checking around critical state machines, “prove this invariant about this module” buttons in IDEs, etc. The tools can be backed by proof engines without most engineers ever seeing a proof script.

The hard part isn’t getting an LLM to grind out proofs, it’s getting organizations to invest in specs and models at all. Right now we barely write good invariants in comments. If AI makes it cheap to iteratively propose and refine specs (“here’s what I think this service guarantees; what did I miss?”) that’s the moment things tip: verification stops being an academic side-quest and becomes another refactoring tool you reach for when changing code, like tests or linters, instead of a separate capital-P “formal methods project”.

Re: AI will make formal verification go mainstream

#16
Interesting. Here is my ai-powered dev prediction: We'll move toward event-sourced systems, because AI will be able to discover patterns and workflow correlations that are hard or impossible to recover from state-only CRUD. It seems silly to not preserve all that business information, given this analysis machine we have at our hands.

Re: AI will make formal verification go mainstream

#17

I love HN because HN comments have talked about this a fair bit already. I think on the recent Erdos problem submission. I like the idea that languages even like Rust and Haskell may be more accessible. Learn them of course but LLM can steer you out of getting stuck.

Or it will lead you to unsafe workarounds when you get stuck

Always a risk.

Some students whose work I had to fix (pre AI), was crashing a lot all over the place, due to !'s instead of ?'s followed by guard let … {} and if let … {}

Re: AI will make formal verification go mainstream

#18
Domain Specific Languages + Formal Verification.

With a domain specific language you can add extra limitations on the kinds of outputs. This can also make formal verification faster.

Maybe like React components. You limit the format. You could limit which libraries can be imported, what hooks could be used, how expressive could be.

Re: AI will make formal verification go mainstream

#19
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it will lead you to unsafe workarounds when you get stuck

Always a risk. Some students whose work I had to fix (pre AI), was crashing a lot all over the place, due to !'s instead of ?'s followed by guard let … {} and if let … {}

Forums used to be full of ppl using ON ERROR RESUME NEXT in VB
Post reply on HN