While AI accelerates code generation, it creates significant new chokepoints. The high volume of AI-generated code leads to "pull request fatigue," requiring more human reviewers per change. It also overwhelms automated testing systems, which must run full cycles for every minor AI-driven adjustment, offsetting initial productivity gains.

An AI agent's failure on a complex task like tax preparation isn't due to a lack of intelligence. Instead, it's often blocked by a single, unpredictable "tiny thing," such as misinterpreting two boxes on a W4 form. This highlights that reliability challenges are granular and not always intuitive.

Tools like Git were designed for human-paced development. AI agents, which can make thousands of changes in parallel, require a new infrastructure layer—real-time repositories, coordination mechanisms, and shared memory—that traditional systems cannot support.

As AI generates more code than humans can review, the validation bottleneck emerges. The solution is providing agents with dedicated, sandboxed environments to run tests and verify functionality before a human sees the code, shifting review from process to outcome.

The term "formal methods" isn't a single, complex technique but a range of mathematical approaches. Many developers already use them via simple tools like Java's type checker (weak guarantees, easy to use), while full functional correctness requires PhD-level interactive theorem provers (strong guarantees, high cost).

While AI can generate code, the stakes on blockchain are too high for bugs, as they lead to direct financial loss. The solution is formal verification, using mathematical proofs to guarantee smart contract correctness. This provides a safety net, enabling users and AI to confidently build and interact with financial applications.

While the computational problem of finding a proof is intractable, the real-world bottleneck is the human process of defining the specification. Getting stakeholders to agree on what a property like "all data at rest is encrypted" truly means requires intense negotiation and is by far the most difficult part.

A formal proof doesn't make a system "perfect"; it only answers the specific properties you asked it to prove. Thinking of it as a perfect query engine, a system can be proven against 5,000 properties, but a critical flaw might exist in the 5,001st property you never thought to ask about.

When selecting foundational models, engineering teams often prioritize "taste" and predictable failure patterns over raw performance. A model that fails slightly more often but in a consistent, understandable way is more valuable and easier to build robust systems around than a top-performer with erratic, hard-to-debug errors.