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.
The idea of building a nuclear reactor as a power source on the Moon is not new.
。夫子对此有专业解读
Дания захотела отказать в убежище украинцам призывного возраста09:44
第二天，销售回复开始涌入。Stuyvenberg 让 AI 继续操作：每隔几分钟检查邮件，把最低报价转发给其他经销商，要求他们“看看能不能给出更低的价格”。当销售试图打电话或发短信推进沟通时，AI 礼貌地把对话引回邮件，让整个流程更可控。