How did software get so reliable without proof? (1996)
Summary
This 1996 paper explores the reasons behind the increasing reliability of software despite the lack of formal proofs, discussing informal methods and engineering practices.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 06/03/26, 07:43 AM
Similar Articles
On the Reliability of Computer Use Agents
A preprint analyzing why computer-use agents succeed once but fail on repeated executions, attributing unreliability to execution stochasticity, task ambiguity, and behavioral variability, and advocating repeated evaluation and stable strategies.
The Architecture of Errors: From Universal Impossibility to Patch-Local LLM Reliability
This paper argues that universal LLM reliability is impossible, but within operationally bounded patches (e.g., legal review, medical RAG), failures are sparse and repetitive, making reliability a local catalogue-discovery problem. It formalizes this with propositions and a corollary, relocating rather than dissolving the difficulty of long-context generation.
Computer Science Conferences Should Require Nonrepudiable Experimental Results
This paper argues that computer science conferences should require nonrepudiable experimental results to prevent tampering and denial, and introduces K-Veritas, a reference implementation for signed reports without accessing training data.
@geoffreyirving: New paper with Gopal Sarma, Rachel Steratore, and Sunny Bhatt, and me surveying formal methods folk about importance an…
A new paper surveying formal methods practitioners on the importance and tractability of applications to AI safety, accompanied by a broader plea for ambitious software verification.
Why your team quietly stopped using the AI tool nobody admits they stopped using
An analysis of why teams quietly abandon AI tools due to broken trust, arguing that the real problem is not model quality but the lack of trust architecture—designing workflows that clearly indicate when AI output is reliable and when it needs verification.