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.
Последние новости
。关于这个话题，WPS官方版本下载提供了深入分析
儘管《安靜復興》背後的數據受到質疑，英國的確在某些地方出現基督信仰回升的跡象。
他进一步解释称，这一判断的核心逻辑在于：
万事俱备，现在让我们体验 AI 驱动的开发流程。我们将使用自然语言 Prompt 指导 Claude 生成一个高完成度的博客首页。