Curious, I would expect a programmer of your age to remember Knuth's "beware of the bugs in above code, I have only proven it's correct but haven't actually run it".

I'm happy you know math, but my point before this thread got derailed was that we're holding (coding) AI to a higher standard than actual humans, namely to expect to write bug-free code.

> my point before this thread got derailed was that we're holding (coding) AI to a higher standard than actual humans, namely to expect to write bug-free code

This seems like a very layman attitude and I would be surprised to find many devs adhering to this idea. Comments in this thread alone suggests that many devs on HN do not agree.

I hold myself to a higher standard than AI tools are capable of, from my experience. (Maybe some people don't, and that's where the disconnect is between the apologists and the naysayers?)

Humans can actually run the code and knows what it should output. the LLM can't, and putting it in a loop against code output doesn't work well either since the LLM can't navigate that well.