A step forward that could influence how smart contracts are designed and verified.
Updated
November 27, 2025 3:26 PM

ChainGPT's robot mascot. IMAGE: CHAINGPT
A new collaboration between ChainGPT, an AI company specialising in blockchain development tools and Secret Network, a privacy-focused blockchain platform, is redefining how developers can safely build smart contracts with artificial intelligence. Together, they’ve achieved a major industry first: an AI model trained exclusively to write and audit Solidity code is now running inside a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE). For the blockchain ecosystem, this marks a turning point in how AI, privacy and on-chain development can work together.
For years, smart-contract developers have faced a trade-off. AI assistants could speed up coding and security reviews, but only if developers uploaded their most sensitive source code to external servers. That meant exposing intellectual property, confidential logic and even potential vulnerabilities. In an industry where trust is everything, this risk held many teams back from using AI at all.
ChainGPT’s Solidity-LLM aims to solve that problem. It is a specialised large language model trained on over 650,000 curated Solidity contracts, giving it a deep understanding of how real smart contracts are structured, optimised and secured. And now, by running inside SecretVM, the Confidential Virtual Machine that powers Secret Network’s encrypted compute layer, the model can assist developers without ever revealing their code to outside parties.
“Confidential computing is no longer an abstract concept,” said Luke Bowman, COO of the Secret Network Foundation. “We've shown that you can run a complex AI model, purpose-built for Solidity, inside a fully encrypted environment and that every inference can be verified on-chain. This is a real milestone for both privacy and decentralised infrastructure”.
SecretVM makes this workflow possible by using hardware-backed encryption to protect all data while computations take place. Developers don’t interact with the underlying hardware or cryptography. Instead, they simply work inside a private, sealed environment where their code stays invisible to everyone except them—even node operators. For the first time, developers can generate, test and analyse smart contracts with AI while keeping every detail confidential.
This shift opens new possibilities for the broader blockchain community. Developers gain a private coding partner that can streamline contract logic or catch vulnerabilities without risking leaks. Auditors can rely on AI-assisted analysis while keeping sensitive audit material protected. Enterprises working in finance, healthcare or governance finally have a path to adopt AI-driven blockchain automation without raising compliance concerns. Even decentralised organisations can run smart-contract agents that make decisions privately, without exposing internal logic on a public chain.
The system also supports secure model training and fine-tuning on encrypted datasets. This enables collaborative AI development without forcing anyone to share raw data—a meaningful step toward decentralised and privacy-preserving AI at scale.
By combining specialised AI with confidential computing, ChainGPT and Secret Network are shifting the trust model of on-chain development. Instead of relying on centralised cloud AI services, developers now have a verifiable, encrypted environment where they keep full control of their code, their data and their workflow. It’s a practical solution to one of blockchain’s biggest challenges: using powerful AI tools without sacrificing privacy.
As the technology evolves, the roadmap includes confidential model fine-tuning, multi-agent AI systems and cross-chain use cases. But the core advancement is already clear: developers now have a way to use AI for smart contract development that is fast, private and verifiable—without compromising the security standards that decentralised systems rely on.
Keep Reading
HKU professor apologizes after PhD student’s AI-assisted paper cites fabricated sources.
Updated
November 28, 2025 4:18 PM
.jpg)
The University of Hong Kong in Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong Island. PHOTO: ADOBE STOCK
It’s no surprise that artificial intelligence, while remarkably capable, can also go astray—spinning convincing but entirely fabricated narratives. From politics to academia, AI’s “hallucinations” have repeatedly shown how powerful technology can go off-script when left unchecked.
Take Grok-2, for instance. In July 2024, the chatbot misled users about ballot deadlines in several U.S. states, just days after President Joe Biden dropped his re-election bid against former President Donald Trump. A year earlier, a U.S. lawyer found himself in court for relying on ChatGPT to draft a legal brief—only to discover that the AI tool had invented entire cases, citations and judicial opinions. And now, the academic world has its own cautionary tale.
Recently, a journal paper from the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at the University of Hong Kong was found to contain fabricated citations—sources apparently created by AI. The paper, titled “Forty Years of Fertility Transition in Hong Kong,” analyzed the decline in Hong Kong’s fertility rate over the past four decades. Authored by doctoral student Yiming Bai, along with Yip Siu-fai, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and other university officials, the study identified falling marriage rates as a key driver behind the city’s shrinking birth rate. The authors recommended structural reforms to make Hong Kong’s social and work environment more family-friendly.
But the credibility of the paper came into question when inconsistencies surfaced among its references. Out of 61 cited works, some included DOI (Digital Object Identifier) links that led to dead ends, displaying “DOI Not Found.” Others claimed to originate from academic journals, yet searches yielded no such publications.
Speaking to HK01, Yip acknowledged that his student had used AI tools to organize the citations but failed to verify the accuracy of the generated references. “As the corresponding author, I bear responsibility”, Yip said, apologizing for the damage caused to the University of Hong Kong and the journal’s reputation. He clarified that the paper itself had undergone two rounds of verification and that its content was not fabricated—only the citations had been mishandled.
Yip has since contacted the journal’s editor, who accepted his explanation and agreed to re-upload a corrected version in the coming days. A formal notice addressing the issue will also be released. Yip said he would personally review each citation “piece by piece” to ensure no errors remain.
As for the student involved, Yip described her as a diligent and high-performing researcher who made an honest mistake in her first attempt at using AI for academic assistance. Rather than penalize her, Yip chose a more constructive approach, urging her to take a course on how to use AI tools responsibly in academic research.
Ultimately, in an age where generative AI can produce everything from essays to legal arguments, there are two lessons to take away from this episode. First, AI is a powerful assistant, but only that. The final judgment must always rest with us. No matter how seamless the output seems, cross-checking and verifying information remain essential. Second, as AI becomes integral to academic and professional life, institutions must equip students and employees with the skills to use it responsibly. Training and mentorship are no longer optional; they’re the foundation for using AI to enhance, not undermine, human work.
Because in this age of intelligent machines, staying relevant isn’t about replacing human judgment with AI, it’s about learning how to work alongside it.