<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Programming on hxwk</title><link>https://hxwk.xyz/tags/programming/</link><description>Recent content in Programming on hxwk</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hxwk.xyz/tags/programming/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The Illusion of Correctness in LLM Generated Code</title><link>https://hxwk.xyz/the-illusion-of-correctness-in-llm-generated-code/</link><pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://hxwk.xyz/the-illusion-of-correctness-in-llm-generated-code/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;For some time now, the tech industry has been circulating the narrative that
large language models will revolutionize software engineering, offering a 100x
productivity boost. The reality looks quite different.
LLMs can generate a sloppy web app, write some boilerplate or refactor a service.
But when the task requires working on genuinely difficult,
architecturally challenging code, the model fails.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The core issue doesn&amp;rsquo;t lie in a lack of compute, but in the very incentive
architecture we use to train these models. From a mechanism design perspective,
current LLMs are optimized for the &lt;em&gt;illusion&lt;/em&gt; of correctness, rather than actual
correctness. This isn&amp;rsquo;t a temporary limitation waiting to be patched with more
compute - it&amp;rsquo;s a structural incentive problem that persists across the training
pipeline, though its severity varies at each stage.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>