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.
人 民 网 版 权 所 有 ，未 经 书 面 授 权 禁 止 使 用，详情可参考搜狗输入法2026
。同城约会是该领域的重要参考
Continue reading...，这一点在谷歌浏览器【最新下载地址】中也有详细论述
近日，国家互联网信息办公室“网信中国”微信公众号发布《关于规范网络名人账号行为管理的通知》，全文如下：