[ai4ever]

people may be unreliable but the software they produce needs to work reliably.

software system is like legos. they form a system of dependencies. each component in the chain has interfaces which other components depend on. 99% reliability doesnt cut it for software components.

[viraptor]

I'm not sure, but you may be misunderstanding the project, or trying to make some point in missing. This project just automates some code tasks. The developer is still responsible for the design / reliability / component interfaces. If you see the result doesn't match the expectations, you can either finish it yourself, or send this tool for another loop with new instructions.

[ai4ever]

let me test it out, and then provide better feedback.

[falcor84]

>the software they produce needs to work reliably

The word "need" is an extreme overstatement here. The vast majority of software out there is unreliable. If anything, I believe it is AI that can finally bring formally verified software into the industry, because us regular human devs definitely aren't doing that.

[ai4ever]

thats a fair statement to say that humans cannot be the gatekeepers for accuracy or reliability.

but why should the solution involve AI (thats just the latest bandwagon)? formal verification of software has a long history which has nothing to do with AI.

[cma]

Probably because of Google's recent math olympiad results using AI-directed search in formal proof systems.

[stale2002]

> but why should the solution involve AI

Because AI is able to produce lots of results, covering a wide range of domains, and it can do so cheaply.

Sure, there are so quality issues. But that is the case for most software.

[dartos]

What part of “AI” implies “formally verified?”