TL;DR

Schrödinger’s cat and AI work together as a metaphor for unresolved uncertainty, not as an explanation of quantum computing. A language model selects an output from computational probabilities. That selection does not establish whether its claims are correct, whether the request was understood, or whether an agent should act.

For enterprise AI, the useful distinction is between generating a proposal, verifying its claims, authorizing an action, and confirming its outcome. Keep those steps separate. Use evidence appropriate to the claim, clarify ambiguous requests, restrict tool access, and evaluate behavior before and after deployment. An answer is not literally both true and false until checked. Its correctness may simply remain unknown to the people relying on it.

Introduction

Consider an infrastructure assistant asked whether an existing server configuration can support a new workload. It returns a confident answer, explains the architecture, and recommends proceeding.

The response may be useful. It may also have skipped the questions that determine whether the recommendation is defensible: Which software versions are installed? Does the support matrix cover this combination? What happens under the expected concurrency? Is the available capacity still available? Does the person requesting the deployment have authority to approve it?

This is where the comparison with Schrödinger’s cat becomes useful. The answer has appeared, but several important uncertainties remain unresolved. The organization has selected a sentence, not necessarily established a fact or approved a change.

The engineering question is therefore not, “Does the AI sound certain?” It is, “What evidence would justify relying on this output, and what controls must apply before it changes anything?”

The discussion here concerns conventional autoregressive language models and tool-using AI applications. The infrastructure examples are illustrative, not product-support statements. The control pattern later in the article is a proposed application of the metaphor, not a mechanism established by quantum physics.

Where the Schrödinger’s Cat Analogy Stops

In his 1935 paper, Schrödinger used the cat thought experiment to expose a difficulty in extending the quantum description of a microscopic event to a macroscopic outcome. The familiar description of a cat as “alive and dead until observed” is shorthand for that problem, not simply a story about someone lacking information.

That distinction matters. Quantum superposition is not interchangeable with ordinary uncertainty about a server, an answer, or a future action. The AI mechanisms discussed here involve computational probability distributions, decoding, software state, and evidence. Selecting a token is not quantum wave-function collapse.

The metaphor is useful only when its limits remain visible. It encourages us to ask which possibilities remain unresolved and what would distinguish them. It does not establish that a language model contains several physically coexisting answers, that contradictory claims are simultaneously true, or that human observation creates correctness.

Borrow the question about uncertainty. Do not borrow a physical explanation that does not apply.

Generative AI Selects a Continuation, Not a Truth

In an autoregressive language model, generation proceeds through conditional next-token predictions. The prompt, available context, and tokens already generated influence the distribution for the next step.

Vaswani and colleagues describe the conversion of decoder outputs into next-token probabilities in Attention is All you Need. Holtzman and colleagues, in The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration, examine how different decoding methods select continuations from a language model. These are the computational foundations of the “many possibilities, one output” comparison.

The sequence below shows what is selected. It does not include an independent truth check.

This does not mean every complete answer exists as a fully formed candidate before generation begins. A standard autoregressive process builds the response incrementally. An application may add search, branching, or multiple candidate responses, but those are additional design choices.

For an operator, the important boundary is straightforward: the probability of a token in context is not automatically the probability that a technical claim is true. A decoding setting controls how text is selected. It does not check firmware, query the environment, or establish vendor support.

A response becoming visible resolves what was generated. It does not, by itself, resolve whether that response should be trusted.

AI Output Verification Resolves Claims, Not Reality

Return to the assistant’s statement:

“This server configuration supports the required workload.”

Calling that answer “both correct and incorrect until verified” is too literal. For a sufficiently specified configuration, workload, time, and meaning of “supports,” the claim may already be true or false. What remains unresolved is our knowledge of it. An underspecified claim may also need clarification before it can be evaluated at all.

The practical response is to break the broad statement into questions with different evidence requirements.

Question behind the claim	Evidence to require	What that evidence does not establish
Is the configuration supported?	Authoritative documentation for the exact component and version combination	That it will meet the workload’s performance objectives
Can it run the workload?	A representative functional test with recorded conditions	That every production condition has been covered
Does it meet the required performance?	Measurements against defined concurrency, latency, throughput, and capacity criteria	That performance will remain unchanged as demand or configuration changes
Did the operation produce the intended result?	Observed resource state and workload-level checks	That the action was authorized
Does the result satisfy the actual requirement?	Review against explicit acceptance criteria by the accountable owner	That unrelated requirements or future uses are satisfied

This is a proposed verification model for the infrastructure scenario. Its purpose is to prevent one successful check from being treated as proof of everything else.

A successful lab test is not a vendor-support statement. A support statement is not a performance result. A human approval is a decision, not a substitute for missing evidence.

Match Evidence to Scope and Time

A useful assessment should identify the configuration examined, the workload assumptions, the source versions, the test conditions, and when the environment was observed. “Validated for this configuration under these conditions” is more useful than an unexplained “verified” badge.

The same discipline should apply when an assistant retrieves documents. Require the cited material to support the particular claim and match the environment. Finding a relevant document is not the same as demonstrating that its conditions apply.

Asking the model to repeat or reconsider an answer can expose inconsistencies, but agreement without additional evidence does not independently verify the environment. For a compatibility question, the authoritative matrix and actual inventory matter more than another confident explanation.

Ambiguous Prompts Leave the Problem Undefined

“Can we deploy two clusters?” sounds like a simple question. It might refer to Kubernetes clusters, vSphere clusters, VCF workload domains, physical infrastructure groupings, or logical tenant environments. Those are not interchangeable design objects.

Even after identifying the platform, the requirement may remain unclear. Are the clusters intended for production and testing? Must they survive independent failures? Are they separate tenant boundaries? Is the question about technical feasibility, supportability, available capacity, or permission to deploy?

These are plausible interpretations of the request. Their existence does not prove that the model internally maintains an explicit list of all of them. The engineering problem is the ambiguity in the input, not an assumed ability to inspect the model’s reasoning.

A better assistant response would be:

“Are you asking about two Kubernetes clusters on the existing infrastructure, or two independent infrastructure clusters? What isolation and failure-independence requirements must they meet?”

Clarification narrows the specification. It does not perform a quantum measurement, and it need not eliminate every uncertainty. It should resolve enough ambiguity to identify the target, evaluate the relevant constraints, and avoid acting on an unstated assumption.

For a tool-using system, make the resolved platform, environment, target identifiers, and acceptance criteria explicit inputs to the next stage. Do not leave a consequential interpretation buried inside conversational prose.

AI Agents Turn Possible Actions Into Side Effects

An agent might answer directly, search documentation, query inventory, propose a change, request approval, or decline an unsafe request. Before execution, these are possible workflow branches. After a tool request is issued, the system must determine what actually happened.

That distinction is more operationally important than the cat analogy itself.

A proposed configuration can be revised before submission. A configuration change can affect running services. A notification can reach a customer. A webhook can trigger downstream work. Reversing the primary operation may not reverse every consequence.

For this reason, distinguish an evidence boundary from an authority boundary. The evidence boundary asks whether the claim or proposal has sufficient support for the intended decision. The authority boundary asks whether this identity may perform this exact action on these resources under the current policy.

A technically valid action can still be unauthorized. An authorized action can still fail.

Submission Is Not Confirmation

A tool call establishes that a request was made, not necessarily that the intended result occurred. Design the workflow to distinguish proposed, authorized, submitted, confirmed, failed, and unknown outcomes. A timeout after submission should not automatically become either “failed” or “safe to retry.” Require reconciliation with the target system before another potentially duplicative action.

This is a proposed execution-control rule, not a claim that every API behaves identically. The implementation must account for the target API’s status model, idempotency support, and partial-failure behavior.

Also avoid treating everything before a write as harmless. Evidence collection needs its own scoped access because reads can expose sensitive information or consume shared resources. A recommendation delivered to a user can influence action even when the assistant has no write credentials.

Observation Changes Future Behavior Only Through Feedback

The feedback comparison needs another guardrail: observing an AI response does not automatically retrain the model.

Ouyang and colleagues demonstrate a specific learning mechanism in Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Human demonstrations and rankings are used in a training process that changes subsequent model behavior. That supports the role of feedback in learning. It does not establish that every conversation, rating, or evaluation immediately updates a deployed model’s weights.

In an enterprise application, distinguish several possible change paths. A correction might be included in the next prompt. An application might save approved information in memory. Developers might modify retrieval, policy, or tool routing. A training pipeline might eventually use reviewed feedback to update the model.

Each path changes a different part of the system. Require the application to make that path explicit rather than describing all of them as “the AI learning.”

The following is a proposed managed feedback loop. The change step, not observation alone, connects evaluation to later behavior.

This creates an operational responsibility: record what changed and what was retested. A prompt adjustment should not disappear into an undocumented fix, and feedback should not become persistent memory merely because a user expressed it confidently.

Evaluation can inform improvement. Improvement still requires an identifiable mechanism, an owner, and evidence that the change did not introduce unacceptable regressions.

Testing Opens Part of the Box, Not Every Production Future

A system can be useful in one setting and unreliable in another. NIST’s Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) explicitly distinguishes risk measurements in controlled environments from risks that emerge in operational settings. Its MEASURE function calls for evaluation under conditions similar to deployment, documentation of generalization limits, and monitoring in production.

The implication is not that testing is ineffective. It is that test results have boundaries.

For the infrastructure assistant, a useful test program should challenge the six uncertainties discussed here. Present ambiguous requests, conflicting documentation, stale inventory, unavailable tools, and unexpected target state. Include adversarial cases in which retrieved content attempts to redirect the workflow. Assess whether the application preserves its scope and authority controls, not merely whether it produces an acceptable-looking answer.

Then expand exposure deliberately. Start with replayed cases and bounded simulations. Move to a shadow workflow in which proposed actions cannot reach production write interfaces or automatically drive downstream decisions. Consider a limited rollout only after the evidence supports the next level of responsibility.

These are proposed implementation stages, not a guarantee that the production environment has been fully characterized. Keep monitoring and intervention available after release. NIST’s MANAGE function similarly includes post-deployment monitoring, incident response, recovery, and change management.

Revisit the evaluation when a material part of the system changes: the model, prompt, retrieval corpus, tools, permissions, workload, or operating environment. The relevant question is not simply whether this assistant passed an earlier test. It is whether the available evidence still applies to the system being authorized now.

A Practical Evidence Gate for Infrastructure Agents

The metaphor becomes useful when it changes the workflow. A practical starting point is to separate proposal generation, evidence assessment, authorization, execution, and outcome verification.

The diagram below is a proposed architecture for consequential infrastructure changes. Notice that uncertainty has an explicit hold path, and that passing the evidence gate does not bypass authorization.

An Illustrative Policy Contract

The YAML below describes the intended control contract. It is not a vendor API, an executable policy engine, or a NIST-defined schema. A surrounding service must implement and enforce these checks outside the language model.

The example defaults to proposal-only operation. Adapt the required evidence to the workload and define source-specific freshness rules, approved identities, target-state preconditions, and approval ownership before implementing it.

policy_id: infrastructure-workload-review-v1
execution_mode: propose_only

required_scope:
  - platform
  - environment
  - target_resource_ids
  - workload_acceptance_criteria

evidence_gate:
  required:
    - version_matched_support_evidence
    - current_inventory_snapshot
    - representative_test_result
  on_missing_stale_conflicting_or_error: hold

authorization_gate:
  default: deny
  required:
    - authenticated_scoped_identity
    - current_policy_allows_exact_action
    - approval_bound_to_action_digest
    - target_preconditions_match

execution:
  require_reviewed_mode_change: true
  on_unknown_outcome: reconcile_before_retry
  on_failed_postcondition: stop_and_escalate

audit:
  record:
    - scope_and_evidence_ids
    - model_prompt_and_policy_versions
    - authorization_receipt
    - tool_request_and_observed_outcome

The evidence gate should consume records produced or checked by trusted components. Do not let the model satisfy it by generating a field that says a test passed. Verify the source, target, result, and applicable conditions.

The action digest should bind approval to the exact proposed operation, including the target and parameters. Recheck current policy and relevant target state immediately before execution. Where the target supports conditional operations, use them to protect the interval between checking state and changing it. Otherwise, define the required locking or coordination and acknowledge the remaining race risk.

A reviewed mode change is a deployment decision, not an instruction the model can issue to itself. In the default mode, successful operation produces an assessment and evidence record without making an infrastructure change. Missing, stale, or conflicting evidence produces a hold with a clear explanation.

Test the Gate Before Expanding Authority

For this example, first demonstrate that a successful workload test cannot override missing support evidence. Then change a target parameter after approval and confirm that the executor rejects the altered request. Finally, simulate a submission timeout and confirm that the workflow reconciles the outcome rather than blindly repeating the action.

These are proposed acceptance tests, not reported test results. They make the intended boundary observable.

Assign ownership alongside the mechanism. The platform owner should define support and inventory evidence. The workload owner should define acceptance criteria. The security or policy owner should govern delegated authority. Operations should own reconciliation, containment, and recovery procedures.

Apply the depth of checking to the consequence of the decision. A brainstorming assistant does not need the same gate as an agent changing production networking. The goal is not to eliminate every uncertainty before any useful work occurs. It is to prevent unresolved uncertainty from silently becoming unbounded authority.

Conclusion

Schrödinger’s cat and AI form a useful mental model only when the metaphor remains separate from the mechanism. A language model generates text through computational prediction and decoding. Evidence supports or challenges its claims. Authorization determines whether an action is permitted. Observation establishes what happened within the limits of the measurement.

Those are different functions, and enterprise architecture should preserve the distinction.

The practical starting point is to select one consequential AI-assisted workflow and identify the claim that currently moves from plausible to trusted without enough scrutiny. Define the evidence required, make unresolved conditions visible, and place an independent authority check before execution. Then verify the outcome and retain enough context to understand the decision later.

An answer becoming visible is not the same as an answer becoming verified. A verified claim is not permission to act.

Evidence opens the box far enough to make a defensible decision. It does not remove the need to govern what happens next.

External References

• NIST: Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)
  Canonical URL: https://www.nist.gov/publications/artificial-intelligence-risk-management-framework-ai-rmf-10
• NeurIPS: Attention is All you Need
  Canonical URL: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/hash/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Abstract.html
• arXiv: The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration
  Canonical URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09751
• NeurIPS: Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback
  Canonical URL: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/b1efde53be364a73914f58805a001731-Abstract-Conference.html
• Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society: The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics: A Translation of Schrödinger’s “Cat Paradox Paper”
  Canonical URL: https://materias.df.uba.ar/f4Aa2012c2/files/2012/08/Schrod_cat.pdf

The post Schrödinger’s Cat and AI: Plausible Is Not Proven appeared first on Digital Thought Disruption.