[nnnnico]

not sure that human reasoning actually beats testing when checking for correctness

[ljm]

The production of such tests presumably requires an element of human reasoning.

The requirements have to come from somewhere, after all.

[MrMcCall]

I would argue that designing and implementing a working project requires human reasoning, too, but that line of thinking seems to be falling out of fashion in favor of "best next token" guessing engines.

I know what Spock would say about this approach, and I'm with him.

[Gupie]

"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."

Donald E. Knuth

[fragmede]

Human reason is fine, the problem is that human attention spans aren't great at checking for correctness. I want every corner case regression tested automatically because there's always going to be some weird configuration that a human's going to forget to regression test.

[sarchertech]

With any non trivial system you can’t actually test every corner case. You depend on human reason to identify the ones most likely to cause problems.

[layer8]

Both are necessary, they complement each other.