sigtstp

"Semantics" is literally behavior under execution. This is syntactical analysis by a stochastic language model. I know the NLP literature uses "semantics" to talk about representations but that is an assertion which is contested [1].

Coming back to testing, this implicitly relies on the strong assumption of the LLM correctly associating the code (syntax) with assertions of properties under execution (semantic properties). This is a very risky assumption considering, once again, these things are stochastic in nature and cannot even guarantee syntactical correctness, let alone semantic. Being generous with the former, there is a track record of the latter often failing and producing subtle bugs [2][3][4][5]. Not to mention the observed effect of LLMs often being biased to "agree" with the premise presented to them.

It also kind of misses the point of testing, which is the engineering (not automation) task of reasoning about code and doing QC (even if said tests are later run automatically, I'm talking about their conception). I feel it's a dangerous, albeit tempting, decision to relegate that to an LLM. Fuzzing, sure. But not assertions about program behavior.

From the article, they mention about 4 times higher dosing than detected in humans when the MPs enter through medical supplies (including through surgery).

  - "about 12 μg of MPs [microplastics] per milliliter of blood have been detected in human blood. [prev studies mentioned above]"  (I haven't read those references, though, just going off a quick skim)
  - "We would like to bring mouse blood MPs to this level by injection."
  - "the diluted final concentration after entering the bloodstream should be blood of about 50 μg/mL" [sic]

So the mouse dosing is (compared to humans):

  - 4 times higher than contamination through medical interventions (if i understand correctly)
  - 15 times higher than normal contamination  (only based on the one article)