[avaer]

As a programmer I definitely get annoyed when I see code and I don't understand what it does.

But I also definitely don't understand the problem if I can't get the computer to understand it, with tests.

In some sense I always considered programming to be more trustworthy than maths arguments without the certainty of a solver proof.

With all of these questions in the air, epistemology might be making a comeback.

[godelski]

  > In some sense I always considered programming to be more trustworthy than maths arguments without the certainty of a solver proof.

But programming is a subset of mathematics. They are both formal languages. I suspect the trustworthiness is more in your comfort level than the ability to verify

[zmgsabst]

That depends on who you ask.

Type theory can also be an independent synthetic foundation atop which you build mathematics.

[therobots927]

Tests only work for a limited set of programming verification. In many cases you don’t actually know what the output for any given input should be, so there’s no way of verifying the AI-generated code. You just kind of have to trust it. The only exception I can think of is robotics and quantitative trading. Which have already been extensively utilizing AI.