Reading the code does not mean you understand the code. One lesson that experience in software gave me: I never understood the code. You think it works a certain way, until you find out that it doesn't.
What LLMs make possible is for me to say: find out all the ways this thing works. Analyze the different ways we can run this software, build a fuzzer, build property tests, and run this software in every scenario possible. Log full traces. Log all the outputs. Now, analyze each scenario for bugs. You can't do that by hand.
If we are committed to it, if we put the resources towards it and dedicate the time to it (and we could do this just by saying: it will take half as long as it used to take!), software built by llms in healthcare, finance, automotive, defense, power plans, aviation, manufacturing can all be made MORE reliable and better with LLMs... without ever reading a single line of code. The LLMS are very good at logic, by the way.
Anyway all of this reads like someone who is not actually using LLMs to build software or hasn't tried them in a while. I felt the same way in 2025. I've written 100s of thousands of lines of difficult code. You, the person reading this, has probably interacted with software I've written. For a time you would've interacted with it every time you made a debit card transaction in the united states, for example. I understand code, and care about quality, and that's why I'm all in on LLMs for code.
> What LLMs make possible is for me to say: find out all the ways this thing works. Analyze the different ways we can run this software, build a fuzzer, build property tests, and run this software in every scenario possible. Log full traces. Log all the outputs. Now, analyze each scenario for bugs. You can't do that by hand.
How do you know that it's verifying that the system under test exhibits the properties you desire without either understanding or making blind assumptions about the code it generates to build a fuzzer or a property test? It seems to me that you have just shifted the problem of verification elsewhere and introduced another potential source of error.
They aren't making that claim. They are saying AI can improve on and supplement error-checking. And some error-checking will in fact be made redundant by this tool - but obviously not all of it.
I came here to say something similar. We won’t need to understand the implementation. But we will need to understand the requirements. The tests, or some higher level DSL they’re (deterministically! not via LLMs) generated from, will still need to be human verified.
efficax · · focus · HN ↗
What LLMs make possible is for me to say: find out all the ways this thing works. Analyze the different ways we can run this software, build a fuzzer, build property tests, and run this software in every scenario possible. Log full traces. Log all the outputs. Now, analyze each scenario for bugs. You can't do that by hand.
If we are committed to it, if we put the resources towards it and dedicate the time to it (and we could do this just by saying: it will take half as long as it used to take!), software built by llms in healthcare, finance, automotive, defense, power plans, aviation, manufacturing can all be made MORE reliable and better with LLMs... without ever reading a single line of code. The LLMS are very good at logic, by the way.
Anyway all of this reads like someone who is not actually using LLMs to build software or hasn't tried them in a while. I felt the same way in 2025. I've written 100s of thousands of lines of difficult code. You, the person reading this, has probably interacted with software I've written. For a time you would've interacted with it every time you made a debit card transaction in the united states, for example. I understand code, and care about quality, and that's why I'm all in on LLMs for code.
boomlinde · · focus · HN ↗
How do you know that it's verifying that the system under test exhibits the properties you desire without either understanding or making blind assumptions about the code it generates to build a fuzzer or a property test? It seems to me that you have just shifted the problem of verification elsewhere and introduced another potential source of error.
IAmBroom · · focus · HN ↗
boomlinde · · focus · HN ↗
"[...] without ever reading a single line of code" begs to differ.
IAmBroom · · focus · HN ↗
mckn1ght · · focus · HN ↗