> That's not how you prove that code works properly

Yes it is. What do you expect, formal verification of a toy GUI library? Get real.

> and isn't going to fail due to some obscure or unforessen corner case.

That's called "a bug", they get fixed when they're found. This isn't aerospace software, failure is not only an option, it's an expected part of the process.

> You need actual proof that's driven by the code's overall structure.

I literally don't.

> Humans do this at least informally when they code, AI's can't do that with any reliability

Sounds like a borderline theological argument. Coding agents one-shot problems a lot more often than I ever did. Results are what matters, demonstrable results.