Live data from Hacker News

Test, don't just verify

alperenkeles.com

11–20 of 146 posts

Re: Test, don't just verify

#11

> AI-assisted programming pushes the limits of programming from what you can implement to what you can specify and what you can verify. This really resonates. We can write code a lot faster than we can safely deploy it at the moment.

> We can write code a lot faster than we can safely deploy it at the moment.

We always could. That has been true since the days we programmed computers by plugging jumper wires into a panel.

Re: Test, don't just verify

#13

Formal verification is a nice idea but it's a big hill to climb from where we're at. Most people can't even get agents to robustly E2E QA code, which is a much smaller hill to climb for (probably) larger benefits. I'm sure this area will improve over time though, since it is an eventual unlock for fully autonomous engineering.

I think for most complex systems, robust E2E QA is a waste of money. A small handful of E2E smoke tests and thoughtful application of smaller tests is usually enough. Though to be fair, agent aren't good at that either.

Re: Test, don't just verify

#14
Doesn't this run into the same bottleneck as developing AI first languages? AI need tons of training material for how to write good formal verification code or code in new AI first languages that doesn't exist. The only solution is large scale synthetic generation which is hard to do if humans, on some level, can't verify that the synthetic data is any good.

Re: Test, don't just verify

#15

Formal verification is a nice idea but it's a big hill to climb from where we're at. Most people can't even get agents to robustly E2E QA code, which is a much smaller hill to climb for (probably) larger benefits. I'm sure this area will improve over time though, since it is an eventual unlock for fully autonomous engineering.

I think the section on AI from Zero to QED (a proofs in Lean/lang guide) gives a sober path forward from the perspective of market-makers and trading:

"Imagine market infrastructure where agents must prove, before executing, that their actions satisfy regulatory constraints, risk limits, fairness properties, and eventually machine-checkable proofs of Pareto efficiency of market mechanisms. This is a big, hairy, ambitious goal. Not “we reviewed the code” but “the system verified the proof.” The agent that cannot demonstrate compliance cannot act."

https://sdiehl.github.io/zero-to-qed/20_artificial_intellige...

Re: Test, don't just verify

#17
I agree completely with the author that AI assisted coding pushes the bottleneck to verification of the code.

But you don't really need complete formal verification to get these benefits. TDD gets you a lot of them as well. Perhaps your verification is less certain, but it's much easier to get high automated test coverage than it is to get a formally verifiable codebase.

I think AI assisted coding is going to cause a resurgence of interest in XP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_programming) since AI is a great fit for two big parts of XP. AI makes it easy to write well-tested code. The "pairing" method of writing code is also a great model for interacting with an AI assistant (much better than the vibe-coding model).

Re: Test, don't just verify

#19

> AI is making formal verification go mainstream. This nonsense again. No. No it isn’t. I’m sure the people selling it wish it was, but that doesn’t make it true.

You haven't been paying attention.

The fact that we're reading about it here today and have read about it in the past weeks is one piece of evidence. Another is that we hadn't been reading about it in the past months before November. Opus 4.5 and GPT 5.2 have crossed an usefulness frontier.

Anecdotally, I've been having some success (guiding LLMs) writing Alloy models in the past month and ensuring conformance with code. Making these would've been unjustifiable from ROI perspective fairy tales just this summer. The landscape has changed qualitatively.

Re: Test, don't just verify

#20

> AI-assisted programming pushes the limits of programming from what you can implement to what you can specify and what you can verify. This really resonates. We can write code a lot faster than we can safely deploy it at the moment.

> We can write code a lot faster than we can safely deploy it at the moment.

This has always been the case?

Post reply on HN