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.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
，详情可参考51吃瓜
AI产业链核心矛盾：资本循环的“自我强化”与“自我怀疑”前文提到，三层架构的价值传导失衡催生了产业链的资本循环悖论，而这种悖论的核心，就藏在上游与中游对下游的投资绑定中——它们共同形成了一个看似完美的“资本闭环”：
«Балтика» осталась на пятой позиции с 35 очками в 19 поединках. В 20-м туре калининградцы сыграют 7 марта в гостях с «Ростовом».
文章指出，IBM Z 大型机平台的核心价值不在 COBOL，而在于其从芯片到操作系统的垂直整合架构，能够提供极高的事务处理能力、安全性与可用性。