Hacker News

Using FizzBuzz as your proxy for "unreviewed code" is extremely misleading. It has practically no complexity, it's completely self-contained and easy to verify. In any codebase of even modest complexity, the challenge shifts from "does this produce the correct outputs" to "is this going to let me grow the way I need it to in the future" and thornier questions like "does this have the performance characteristics that I need".

This is a naïve approach, not just because it uses FizzBuzz, but because it ignores the fundamental complexity of software as a system of abstractions. Testing often involves understanding these abstractions and testing for/against them.

For those of us with decades of experience and who use coding agents for hours per-day, we learned that even with extended context engineering these models are not magically covering the testing space more than 50%.

If you asked your coding agent to develop a memory allocator, it would not also 'automatically verify' the memory allocator against all failure modes. It is your responsibility as an engineer to have long-term learning and regular contact with the world to inform the testing approach.

While I understand why people want to skip code reviews, I think it is an absolute mistake at this point in time. I think AI coding assistants are great, but I've seen them fail or go down the wrong path enough times (even with things like spec driven development) where I don't think it's reasonable to not review code. Everything from development paths in production code, improper implementations, security risks: all of those are just as likely to happen with an AI as a Human, and any team that let's humans push to production without a review would absolutely be ridiculed for it.

Again, I'm not opposed to AI coding. I know a lot of people are. I have multiple open source projects that were 100% created with AI assistants, and wrote a blog post about it you can see in my post history. I'm not anti-ai, but I do think that developers have some responsibility for the code they create with those tools.

The core insight here is right: AI-generated code needs different review approaches than human-written code. Humans make predictable mistakes (typos, off-by-one, forgetting edge cases). AI makes unpredictable mistakes that look plausible on the surface.

The trickiest part in my experience isn't catching obviously wrong code - it's catching code that works for all the common cases but fails on edge cases the AI never considered. Traditional code review catches these through reviewer experience, but automated verification needs to somehow enumerate edge cases it hasn't seen.

Property-based testing (Hypothesis for Python, fast-check for JS) is probably the closest existing tool for this. Instead of writing specific test cases, you describe properties the code should satisfy, and the framework generates thousands of random inputs. It's remarkably good at finding the kind of boundary bugs AI tends to produce.

I do think that GenAI will lead to a rise in mutation testing, property testing, and fuzzing. But it's worth people keeping in mind that there are reasons why these aren't already ubiquitous. Among other issues, they can be computationally expensive, especially mutation testing.

> The code must pass property-based tests

Who writes the tests? It can be ok to trust code that passes tests if you can trust the tests.

There are, however, other problems. I frequently see agents write code that's functionally correct but that they won't be able to evolve for long. That's also what happened with Anthropic's failed attempt to have agents write a C compiler (not a trivial task, but far from an exceptionally difficult one). They had thousands of good human-written tests, but the agents couldn't get the software to converge. They fixed one bug only to create another.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how this can scale beyond trivial programs like simplified FizzBuzz.

So are we finally past the stage where people pretend they're actually reading any of the code their LLMs are dumping out?

"However, I'm starting to think that maintainability and readability aren't relevant in this context. We should treat the output like compiled code."

I would like to put my marker out here as vigorously disagreeing with this. I will quote my post [1] again, which given that this is the third time I've referred to a footnote via link rather suggests this should be lifted out of the footnote:

"It has been lost in AI money-grabbing frenzy but a few years ago we were talking a lot about AIs being “legible”, that they could explain their actions in human-comprehensible terms. “Running code we can examine” is the highest grade of legibility any AI system has produced to date. We should not give that away.

"We will, of course. The Number Must Go Up. We aren’t very good at this sort of thinking.

"But we shouldn’t."

Do not let go of human-readable code. Ask me 20 years ago whether we'd get "unreadable code generation" or "readable code generation" out of AIs and I would have guessed they'd generate completely opaque and unreadable code. Good news! I would have been completely wrong! They in fact produce perfectly readable code. It may be perfectly readable "slop" sometimes, but the slop-ness is a separate issue. Even the slop is still perfectly readable. Don't let go of it.

[1]: https://jerf.org/iri/post/2026/what_value_code_in_ai_era/

So often these AI articles mis or ignore the Test Oracle Problem. Generating correct tests is at least as hard as generating the correct answers (often harder).

I’m actually starting to get annoyed about how much material is getting spread around about software analysis / formal methods by folks ignorant about the basics of the field.

production ready "fizz buzz" code. lol. I can't even continue typing this response.

Even with mutation testing doesn’t this still require review of the testing code?

This one is pretty easy!

Just write your business requirements in a clear, unambiguous and exhaustive manner using a formal specification language.

Bam, no coding required.

I think we need to approach provable code.

...in FizzBuzz

I might be missing the point of the article, but from what I understand, the TL;DR is, "cover your code with tests", be it unit tests, functional tests, or mutants.

Each of these approaches is just fine and widely used, and none of them can be called "automated verification", which, if my understanding of the term is correct, is more about mathematical proof that the program works as expected.

The article mostly talks about automatic test generation.

[dead]

[flagged]

[flagged]