"And that’s what programmers expect: In the normal case a read from an array (even an out-of-bounds read) performs a load from the address computed for the array element; the programmer expects that load to produce the value at that address, or, in the out-of-bounds case, it may also lead to a segmentation violation (Unix), general protection fault (Windows), or equivalent; but most programmers do not expect it to “optimize” a bounded loop into an endless loop."
For example, he goes on to say that some programs capable of undefined behavior are nevertheless correct if compiled in a certain way, but how is the compiler-writer to determine that? The unstated assumption is that there is a preferred compilation under which all programs are 'more correct', but when it comes to undefined behavior, then, by (non)definition, there is no 'more correct' way to compile it. Therefore, saying there is a 'more correct' way is equivalent to saying that at least some undefined behavior should be defined in a particular way. The article would have been simpler if the author had realized that this is what he is proposing, and skipped the confused correctness arguments.
If I can divine what the author of this article actually intended to say, I think it is that, in at least some cases of undefined behavior, programmers commonly have intuitions about what would happen if that behavior occurred during the execution of their programs. I don't know if the rest of the thesis can be salvaged by substituting that reading.