Architectures of Error: A Philosophical Inquiry into AI and Human Code Generation

TL;DR

This paper introduces a philosophical framework called 'Architectures of Error' to distinguish human and AI code generation errors, analyzing their different origins and implications for collaborative software development.

Contribution

It develops a novel epistemic framework grounded in philosophy to differentiate human and machine code errors, informing ethical and practical considerations in AI-assisted programming.

Findings

Identifies human-cognitive versus artificial-stochastic error origins.

Highlights implications for security, epistemology, and control in AI-human collaboration.

Provides a structured philosophical approach to understanding AI-generated code errors.

Abstract

With the rise of generative AI (GenAI), Large Language Models are increasingly employed for code generation, becoming active co-authors alongside human programmers. Focusing specifically on this application domain, this paper articulates distinct ``Architectures of Error'' to ground an epistemic distinction between human and machine code generation. Examined through their shared vulnerability to error, this distinction reveals fundamentally different causal origins: human-cognitive versus artificial-stochastic. To develop this framework and substantiate the distinction, the analysis draws critically upon Dennett's mechanistic functionalism and Rescher's methodological pragmatism. I argue that a systematic differentiation of these error profiles raises critical philosophical questions concerning semantic coherence, security robustness, epistemic limits, and control mechanisms in human-AI collaborative software development. The paper also utilizes Floridi's levels of abstraction to provide a nuanced understanding of how these error dimensions interact and may evolve with technological advancements. This analysis aims to offer philosophers a structured framework for understanding GenAI's unique epistemological challenges, shaped by these architectural foundations, while also providing software engineers a basis for more critically informed engagement.