this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2026
91 points (100.0% liked)
Programming
24365 readers
460 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have a feeling that their test case is also a bit flawed. Trying to get index_value instead of index value is something I can imagine happening, and asking an LLM to ‘fix this but give no explanation’ is asking for a bad solution.
I think they are still correct in the assumption that output becomes worse, though
It just emphasizes the importance of tests to me. The example should fail very obviously when you give it even the most basic test data.
Yeah, if only QA vere not the first ‘replaced’ by AI 😠
This isn't even a QA level thing. If you write any tests at all, which is basic software engineering practice, even if you had AI write the tests for you, the error should be very, very obvious. I mean I guess we could go down the road of "well what if the engineer doesn't read the tests?" but at that point the article is less about insidious AI and just about bad engineers. So then just blame bad engineers.
Yeah, I understand that this case doesn't require a QA, but in the wild companies seem to increasingly think that developers are necessary (yet), but QA are surely not
It's not even bad engineers, it's just squeezing of productivity as dry as possible, as I see it