From a game dev perspective, user Q&AQA is often annoying and repetitive labor. Endlessly criss-crossing terran hitting different buttons to make sure you don’t snag a corner or click objects in a sequence that triggers a state freeze. Hooking a PS controller to Roomba logic and having a digital tool rapidly rerun routes and explore button combos over and over, looking for failed states, is significantly better for you than hoping an overworked team of dummy players can recreate the failed state by tripping into it manually.
I mean, as a branding exercise, every form of sophisticated automation is getting the “AI” label.
Past that, advanced pathing algorithms are what Q&A systems need to validate all possible actions within a space. That’s the bread-and-butter of AI. Its also generally how you’d describe simulated end-users on a test system.
I mean, as a branding exercise, every form of sophisticated automation is getting the “AI” label.
The article is specifically talking about generative AI. I think we need to find new terminology to describe the kind of automation that was colloquially referred to as AI before chatgpt et al. came into existence.
The important distinction, I think, is that these things are still purpose-built and (mostly) explainable. When you have a bunch of nails, you design a hammer. An “AI bot” QA tester the way Booty describes in the article isn’t going to be an advanced algorithm that carries out specific tests. That exists already and has for years. He’s asking for something that will figure out specific tests that are worth doing when given a vague or nonexistent test plan, most likely. You need a human, or an actual AGI, for something on that level, not generative AI.
And explicitly with generative AI, as pertains to Square Enix’s initiative in the article, there are the typical huge risks of verifiability and hallucination. However unpleasant you may think a QA worker’s job is now, I guarantee you it will be even more unpleasant when the job consists of fact-checking AI bug reports all day instead of actually doing the testing.
From a game dev perspective, user
Q&AQA is often annoying and repetitive labor. Endlessly criss-crossing terran hitting different buttons to make sure you don’t snag a corner or click objects in a sequence that triggers a state freeze. Hooking a PS controller to Roomba logic and having a digital tool rapidly rerun routes and explore button combos over and over, looking for failed states, is significantly better for you than hoping an overworked team of dummy players can recreate the failed state by tripping into it manually.There’s plenty of room for sophisticated automation without any need to involve AI.
Not all AI is generative.
I mean, as a branding exercise, every form of sophisticated automation is getting the “AI” label.
Past that, advanced pathing algorithms are what Q&A systems need to validate all possible actions within a space. That’s the bread-and-butter of AI. Its also generally how you’d describe simulated end-users on a test system.
The article is specifically talking about generative AI. I think we need to find new terminology to describe the kind of automation that was colloquially referred to as AI before chatgpt et al. came into existence.
The important distinction, I think, is that these things are still purpose-built and (mostly) explainable. When you have a bunch of nails, you design a hammer. An “AI bot” QA tester the way Booty describes in the article isn’t going to be an advanced algorithm that carries out specific tests. That exists already and has for years. He’s asking for something that will figure out specific tests that are worth doing when given a vague or nonexistent test plan, most likely. You need a human, or an actual AGI, for something on that level, not generative AI.
And explicitly with generative AI, as pertains to Square Enix’s initiative in the article, there are the typical huge risks of verifiability and hallucination. However unpleasant you may think a QA worker’s job is now, I guarantee you it will be even more unpleasant when the job consists of fact-checking AI bug reports all day instead of actually doing the testing.
If it does the job better, who the fuck cares. No one actually cares about how you feel about the tech. Cry me a river.
The problem is that if it doesn’t do a better job, no one left in charge will even know enough to give a shit, so quality will go down.