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.
In 1992, in a small shop in British Columbia, a sign maker named Blair Gran stared at a wall full of half-finished jobs and felt something click. Sign-making was treated like a commodity — orders in, banners out — but as thousands of signs came through his shop, he couldn’t help but notice the difference between the good ones and the bad ones. He could see that every sign that left his shop was either helping a business get noticed, or letting it disappear in plain sight.。关于这个话题，同城约会提供了深入分析
Warning - this story contains content that some may find distressing，推荐阅读搜狗输入法下载获取更多信息
"onyxId": "80479155036098560",