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.

A key reason formal methods remained in academia is their fragility in development pipelines. A minor code change, like renaming a variable, can cause a previously fast-running proof to time out indefinitely in a CI/CD environment. Solving this "brittleness" is critical for industrial adoption.

Pursuing 100% security is an impractical and undesirable goal. Formal methods aim to dramatically raise assurance by closing glaring vulnerabilities, akin to locking doors on a house that's currently wide open. The goal is achieving an appropriate level of security, not an impossible absolute guarantee.

Claiming a "99% success rate" for an AI guardrail is misleading. The number of potential attacks (i.e., prompts) is nearly infinite. For GPT-5, it's 'one followed by a million zeros.' Blocking 99% of a tested subset still leaves a virtually infinite number of effective attacks undiscovered.

Continuously updating an AI's safety rules based on failures seen in a test set is a dangerous practice. This process effectively turns the test set into a training set, creating a model that appears safe on that specific test but may not generalize, masking the true rate of failure.

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.

Traditional software testing fails because developers can't anticipate every failure mode. Antithesis inverts this by running applications in a deterministic simulation of a hostile real world. By "throwing the kitchen sink" at software—simulating crashes, bad users, and hackers—it empirically discovers rare, critical bugs that manual test cases would miss.