Urbelis said he believes artificial intelligence could eventually reshape the standard of care around smart contract development. Historically, teams could point to the cost and complexity of audits as a reason why certain reviews were not performed. That argument becomes more difficult when sophisticated security analysis is available on demand.
“A pure AI report will be seen as no defense,” he said. “A plaintiff may well argue the other way: The tool existed, it was cheap, and you should have caught it.”
The prospect raises broader questions for the industry: If AI-powered safety assessments become ubiquitous, will investors expect them before funding projects, and could failure to run AI-assisted audits ultimately be considered negligence?
Despite the technology’s promise, neither researcher said he believes AI is ready to replace human auditors.
While machines excel at identifying coding errors, Urbelis said they are still weaker at detecting the financial and incentive-based vulnerabilities that have contributed to some of crypto’s biggest losses. “The mistakes that drain government coffers often turn on intentions and conflicting incentives,” he said. “They still lack an experienced person in the space.”
Schwed gave a similar warning. “‘Claude, check my smart contract, make no mistakes’ is not a security program,” he said. “If the person running the tool can’t evaluate what’s coming back, you haven’t bought security, you’ve bought a false sense of it.”
