During development I encountered a caveat: Opus 4.5 can’t test or view a terminal output, especially one with unusual functional requirements. But despite being blind, it knew enough about the ratatui terminal framework to implement whatever UI changes I asked. There were a large number of UI bugs that likely were caused by Opus’s inability to create test cases, namely failures to account for scroll offsets resulting in incorrect click locations. As someone who spent 5 years as a black box Software QA Engineer who was unable to review the underlying code, this situation was my specialty. I put my QA skills to work by messing around with miditui, told Opus any errors with occasionally a screenshot, and it was able to fix them easily. I do not believe that these bugs are inherently due to LLM agents being better or worse than humans as humans are most definitely capable of making the same mistakes. Even though I myself am adept at finding the bugs and offering solutions, I don’t believe that I would inherently avoid causing similar bugs were I to code such an interactive app without AI assistance: QA brain is different from software engineering brain.
近日，IBM 高级副总裁 Rob Thomas 发布文章，回应外界围绕「AI 能否快速替代 COBOL 与大型机」的讨论。。关于这个话题，WPS官方版本下载提供了深入分析
，推荐阅读旺商聊官方下载获取更多信息
Последние новости
const origSet = srcObjDesc.set;，这一点在heLLoword翻译官方下载中也有详细论述
В Финляндии предупредили об опасном шаге ЕС против России09:28