[anonzzzies]

I am still hoping AI progress will get to the point where the AI can eventually create AI's that are built up out of robust and provable logic which can be read and audited. Until that time, I wouldn't trust it for risky stuff. Unfortunately, it's not my choice and within a scarily short timespan, black boxes will make painfully wrong decisions about vital things that will ruin lives.

[tromp]

AI assisted theorem provers will go a bit in that direction. You may not know exactly how they managed to construct a proof, but you can examine that proof in detail and verify its correctness.

[anonzzzies]

Yes, I have a small team of (me being 1/3) doing formal verification in my company and we do this and it doesn't actually matter if how the AI got there; we can mathematically say it's correct which is what matters. We do (and did) program synthesis and proofs but this is all very far from doing anything serious at scale.

[InkCanon]

What kind of company needs formal verification? Real time systems?

[tasty_freeze]

Companies designing digital circuits use it all the time.

Say you have a module written in VHDL or Verilog and it is passing regressions and everyone is happy. But as the author, you know the code is kind of a mess and you want to refactor the logic. Yes, you can make your edits and then run a few thousand directed tests and random regressions and hope that any error you might have made will be detected. Or you can use formal verification and prove that the two versions of your source code are functionally identical. And the kicker is it often takes minutes to formally prove it, vs hundreds to thousands of CPU hours to run a regression suite.

At some point the source code is mapped from a RTL language to gates, and later those gates get mapped to a mask set. The software to do that is complex and can have bugs. The fix is to extract the netlist from the masks and then formally verify that the extracted netlist matches the original RTL source code.

If your code has assertions (and it should), formal verification can be used to find counter examples that disprove the assertion.

But there are limitations. Often logic is too complex and the proof is bounded: it can show that from some initial state no counter example can be found in, say, 18 cycles, but there might be a bug that takes at least 20 cycles to expose. Or it might find counter examples and you find it arises only in illegal situations, so you have to manually add constraints to tell it which input sequences are legal (which often requires modeling the behavior of the module, and that itself can have bugs...).

The formal verifiers that I'm familiar with are really a collection of heuristic algorithms and a driver which tries various approaches for a certain amount of time before switching to a different algorithm to see if that one can crack the nut. Often, when a certain part of the design can be proven equivalent, it aids in making further progress, so it is an iterative thing, not a simple "try each one in turn". The frustrating thing is you can run formal on a module and it will prove there are no violations with a bounded depth of, say, 32 cycles. A week later a new release of your formal tool comes out with bug fixes and enhancements. Great! And now that module might have a proof depth of 22 cycles, even though nothing changed in the design.

[anonzzzies]

Real time / embedded / etc for money handling, healthcare, aviation/transport... And 'needs' is a loaded term; the biggest $ contributors to formal verification progress are blockchain companies these days while a lot of critical systems are badly written, outsourced things that barely have tests.

My worst fear, which is happening because it works-ish, is vague/fuzzy systems being the software because it's so like humans and we don't have anything else. It's a terrible idea, but of course we are in a hurry.

[optimalsolver]

>AI can eventually create AI's that are built up out of robust and provable logic

That's the approach behind Max Tegmark and Steven Omohundro's "Provably Safe AGI":

https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01933

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhMwkk6uOK8

However, there are issues. How do you even begin to formalize concepts like human well-being?

[anonzzzies]

> However there are issues. How do you even begin to formalize concepts like human well-being?

Oh agreed! But with AI we might(!) have the luxury to create different types of brains; logically correct brains for space flight, building structures (or at least the calcuations), taxes, accounting, physics, math etc and brains with feelings for many other things. Have those cooperate.

ps. thanks for the links!

[necovek]

The only problem is that "logical correctness" depends on the limits of human brain too: formal logic is based on the usual pre-accepted assumptions and definitions ("axioms").

This is what I consider the limit of the human mind: we have to start with a few assumptions we can't "prove" to build even a formal logic system which we then use to build all the other provably correct systems, but we still add other axioms to make them work.

It's hard for me to even think how AI can help with that.

[fuzztester]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custode...

excerpt of the first few paragraphs, sorry about any wrong formatting, links becoming plain text, etc. just pasted it as is:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a Latin phrase found in the Satires (Satire VI, lines 347–348), a work of the 1st–2nd century Roman poet Juvenal. It may be translated as "Who will guard the guards themselves?" or "Who will watch the watchmen?".

The original context deals with the problem of ensuring marital fidelity, though the phrase is now commonly used more generally to refer to the problem of controlling the actions of persons in positions of power, an issue discussed by Plato in the Republic.[citation needed] It is not clear whether the phrase was written by Juvenal, or whether the passage in which it appears was interpolated into his works. Original context edit

The phrase, as it is normally quoted in Latin, comes from the Satires of Juvenal, the 1st–2nd century Roman satirist. Although in its modern usage the phrase has wide-reaching applications to concepts such as tyrannical governments, uncontrollably oppressive dictatorships, and police or judicial corruption and overreach, in context within Juvenal's poem it refers to the impossibility of enforcing moral behaviour on women when the enforcers (custodes) are corruptible (Satire 6, 346–348):

audio quid ueteres olim moneatis amici, "pone seram, cohibe." sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? cauta est et ab illis incipit uxor.

I hear always the admonishment of my friends: "Bolt her in, constrain her!" But who will watch the watchmen? The wife plans ahead and begins with them!

[gsf_emergency_2]

Apologies for taking the phrase in a slightly farcical (& incurious ?) direction:

   Who will take custody of the custodians?

[fuzztester]

#!/usr/bin/badlatininterpreter

no comprendere tu commentum

but

apologia unneeded est

[gsf_emergency_2]

"Take custody" => infantilize, as of children => handling people with power like children => copium, wankery

Apologia not uh in the realm of consideration, marginally insightful because shitty latin marginally enjoyable