<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>AI on Hongbo Chen</title><link>https://ya0guang.com/tags/ai/</link><description>Recent content in AI on Hongbo Chen</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://ya0guang.com/tags/ai/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Delegation vs Review: You Can Only Hand Off What You Can Verify</title><link>https://ya0guang.com/blog/2026-09-26-delegationvsreview/</link><pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://ya0guang.com/blog/2026-09-26-delegationvsreview/</guid><description>&lt;p>AI now writes code and finds bugs faster than people can carefully read. Once line-by-line review stops being possible, what can we still trust? And where does that trust end?&lt;/p>
&lt;p>My current answer: what you can safely hand to AI depends on what a human can verify. What changes is &lt;em>what&lt;/em> the human verifies. We used to read the code. Now we mostly look at the machinery that produced the result: the verifier says &amp;ldquo;proof checks&amp;rdquo;, the sandbox says &amp;ldquo;can&amp;rsquo;t get out&amp;rdquo;, the sampling audit says &amp;ldquo;distribution looks normal&amp;rdquo;. Those are the things we trust. They deserve that trust because the mechanisms behind them are small and rarely change, so a person can check them once and keep relying on them. This post tries to answer two questions: which properties can be handed to mechanisms like that, and what to do when a mechanism itself fails.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>