Oh. So, because I said I work in software you assumed I worked in safety critical systems?

Interesting. A little unhinged, but interesting.

Anyways, as I said elsewhere, I don't code for fun, and my employer would be unhappy if I sent you their proprietary code.

You can decide to do some experiments yourself, or you can decide that you don't want to hear it. No skin off my back either way.

> Oh. So, because I said I work in software you assumed I worked in safety critical systems?

No, I didn't. I asked you to provide me an example of code that you had generated via AI that might survive in such an environment. But if you re-read my original post, I also gave you an escape hatch: just code that was correct. Not even formally.

I'd say your refusal to provide any examples of your original claim is pretty telling, and your reasoning is pretty convenient for you, now isn't it?

Edit: also, I'd like to point out that it was you who used the word "software" as a general claim. You never specified what kind of software. Since you continue to expect me to derive the proof for you instead of you providing the evidence, I don't see any need to continue this discussion since nobody is obviously going to learn anything. I'm sure many of us here would love to learn what secret sauce your using that makes software engineering so trivial, but you don't seem willing to actually provide that.

They simply asked you to support your claims, as an ethical person would. Without that, your words are just noise.

And I see that this isn't the only comment you made where someone asked to provide supporting evidence and you dodged.