His trick is to use AI to build the tools that do the work, not to ask it to do the work itself. If you say "hey Mr. AI, please port this code to Go," it'll give you back a big bag of code that you have no insight into. If it hallucinated something, you wouldn't know without auditing the whole massive codebase.

If instead you let AI build a small tool to aid the work, your audit surface is much smaller - you just need to make sure the helper tool is correct. It can then operate deterministically over the much larger codebase.

> This is exactly why every AI citation we publish goes through a blocker.

Who is "we"? Kudos!

> What guard rails have other people put in front of AI-written judgements?

A great question. Some 'classic' responses here relate to (a) inter-notator agreement [1]; (b) debate [2]; (c) decomposition / deconstruction [3]; and lots more... computer science is all well and good, but philosophy has studied these topics for thousands of years! Epistemology, in particular, totally slays.

I would also generalize the question: what guard-rails do we need in front of any and all writing? Presumably there is some generative process behind it, but I assume very little now-a-days. Even before the last several years of transformer-fueled mayhem, my confidence even in "highly intelligent" and college-educated people dropped sharply. Talk is cheap, and some people like to talk more than others -- often the kinds of people that I don't find value in listening to.

[1]: Inter-annotator agreement : http://ron.artstein.org/publications/inter-annotator-preprin...

[2]: AI Safety via Debate : https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.00899

[3]: Fact in fragments: Deconstructing complex claims via LLM-based atomic fact extraction and verification : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09574...