The repetition of “Q&A” reads like this comment was also outsourced to AI.
Comment on Square Enix says it wants generative AI to be doing 70% of its QA and debugging by the end of 2027
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 day agoI would initially tap the breaks on this, if for no other reason than “AI doing Q&A” reads more like corporate buzzwords than material policy. Big software developers should already have much of their Q&A automated, at least at the base layer. Further automating Q&A is generally a better business practice, as it helps catch more bugs in the Dev/Test cycle sooner.
Then consider that Q&A work by end users is historically a miserable and soul-sucking job. Converting those roles to debuggers and active devs does a lot for both the business and the workforce. When compared to “AI is doing the art” this is night-and-day, the very definition of the “Getting rid of the jobs people hate so they can do the work they love” that AI was supposed to deliver.
Finally, I’m forced to drag out the old “95% of AI implementations fail” statistic. Far more worried that they’re going to implement a model that costs a fortune and delivers mediocre results than that they’ll implement an AI driven round of end-user testing.
Turning Q&A over to the Roomba AI to find corners of the setting that snag the user would be Gud Aktuly.
NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
binarytobis@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
I was going to say, this is one job that actually makes sense to automate. I don’t know any QA testers personally, but I’ve heard plenty of accounts of them absolutely hating their jobs and getting laid off after the time crunch anyway.
zerofk@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
What does Q&A stand for?
Dojan@pawb.social 40 minutes ago
Usually Questions and Answers.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
Ugh. QA. Quality Assurance. Reflexively jamming that & because I am a bad AI.
Regardless, digital simulated users are going to be able to test faster, more exhaustively, and with more detailed diagnostics, than manual end users.
Mikina@programming.dev 20 hours ago
They already have a really cool solution for that, which they talked about in their GDC talk.. I don’t think there’s any need to slap a glorified chatbot into this, it already seems to work well and have just the right amount of human input to be reliable, while also leaving the “testcase replay gruntwork” to a script instead of a human.
natecox@programming.dev 1 day ago
Hahahahaha… on wait you’re serious. Let me laugh even harder.
They’re just gonna lay them off.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
And hire other people with the excess budget. Hell, depending on how badly these systems are implemented, you can end up with more staff supporting the testing system than you had doing the testing.
pixxelkick@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
The thing about QA is the work is truly endless.
If they can do their work more efficiently, they don’t get laid off.
It just means a better % of edge cases can get covered, even if you made QAs operate at 100x efficiency, they’d still have edge cases not getting covered.