Great point on focusing on high-impact tests. I agree that LLMs risk giving a false sense of coverage. Maybe a smart strategy is generating boilerplate tests while we focus on custom edge cases.
Absolutely with you on the need for high-impact tests. I find that humans are still way better at coming up with the tests that actually matter, while AI can handle the implementation faster—especially when there’s a human guiding it.
Keeping a human in the loop is essential, in my experience. The AI does the heavy lifting, but we make sure the tests are genuinely useful. That balance helps avoid the trap of churning out “dumb” tests that might look impressive but don’t add real value.
idoco|1 year ago
Keeping a human in the loop is essential, in my experience. The AI does the heavy lifting, but we make sure the tests are genuinely useful. That balance helps avoid the trap of churning out “dumb” tests that might look impressive but don’t add real value.