Is bug reporting on the way out as dodo bird?
-
AI (Ai) has a biblical meaning as "ruined heap". Yikes.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day" Badfinger
-
With proliferation of "AI" - is bug reporting DEFINITELY and REALLY useless ? AKA "who cares ".....
Not so sure about the dodo [^]
Nothing succeeds like a budgie without teeth. To err is human, to arr is pirate.
-
With proliferation of "AI" - is bug reporting DEFINITELY and REALLY useless ? AKA "who cares ".....
Erm, no
Paul Sanders. If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter - Blaise Pascal. Some of my best work is in the undo buffer.
-
With proliferation of "AI" - is bug reporting DEFINITELY and REALLY useless ? AKA "who cares ".....
Really hope AI replaces bug triage soon. For the last 5 days, I've been trying to get Microsoft to fix a bug with winget, and it's a relatively simple one: some packages can't be installed. During 2 days of triage, it was cleared up that the -e flag stopped working, and that their fuzzy matching just isn't reliable. Fine. I ask them to fix the -e flag, but for days they keep hammering on about their fuzzy matching. I don't want fuzzy matching, I want an -e flag that works. Who the heck does orchestration scripts based on fuzzy matching? It's a 1 step repro. Why is this so hard? It's been driving me up the walls.
-
Considering that the dodo may be on the way back [Gene editing company hopes to bring dodo ‘back to life’ | Extinct wildlife | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jan/31/gene-editing-company-hopes-to-bring-dodo-back-to-life) that may not be a good example, anymore. But no, bug reports will still need to be made. Bugs will still occur, some of them will be potentially catastrophic (what do you mean, the plane tried to land 2 meters below the runway???). So bug reporting will still be needed. AI might be able help narrow down the nature and/or location of the bug, maybe even one day correct the bug, but for now, as others here and in other locations have noted AI is very poor AI at writing code. I can't imagine it would do any better at fixing bugs. And companies producing software will still be liable.
Keep Calm and Carry On
A "meter" is a device that measures something. A "metre" is a distance of about three feet, or 1000 millimetres.
-
Replace send_reply("ID10T error!"); with Replace send_reply("OLD FART FAULT");
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day" Badfinger
Disparaging remarks about older people is just childish. What do you want to be when you grow up?
-
With proliferation of "AI" - is bug reporting DEFINITELY and REALLY useless ? AKA "who cares ".....
-
Try solving your next question with ChatGPT and you will get a reasonable idea of the answer.
Some humans are hopeless at writing code, most are barely adequate and some are brilliant at it. The same will apply to AI systems. The first few have been rushed into service by suits who want to test the water (and maybe make a few quick bucks), but I have no doubt that in time there will be specialist code-writing AI systems, trained to do that job, that will work very well. Equally AI debugging systems trained to do that will also emerge. But I question whether the present crop can be called "intelligence". They do not think, they repeat what they have been "taught". They are just moderately sophisticated computer programs. When asking the same question or setting the same task repeatedly returns better and better answers (confirming that the system is actually considering previous answers and thinking a bit more about it), and showing signs of imagination in their thinking, only then will I consider the label "AI" appropriate.
-
With proliferation of "AI" - is bug reporting DEFINITELY and REALLY useless ? AKA "who cares ".....
AI is created by a species that hardly can be considered themselves. How can you trust AI when it is created by people that still fight wars, discriminate, and basically did not evolve since the stone age.
-
As long as there are customers, there will bug reports. Don't see AI being involved in this at all except to possibly weed out actual bugs from the growing geriatric population of users that make mistakes. :laugh:
Latest Article:
SVG Grids: Squares, Triangles, Hexagons with scrolling, sprites and simple animation examplesMarc Clifton wrote:
As long as there are customers, there will bug reports
Agreed. Users want to get the job done, and they don't care what your application's problem is. They ignore warning messages, and complain when the warning condition turns into an error. Any 'obstruction' to getting their work done becomes a bug report. I've had customers complain that we didn't stop them from doing a thing, and then bitched about the fact we wouldn't let them do it after we 'fixed' it.
Marc Clifton wrote:
the growing geriatric population of users that make mistakes
Harrumph. I resemble that re[Marc]. :-D
Software Zen:
delete this; -
With proliferation of "AI" - is bug reporting DEFINITELY and REALLY useless ? AKA "who cares ".....
-
A "meter" is a device that measures something. A "metre" is a distance of about three feet, or 1000 millimetres.
Actually, that is not true in the USA or Canada.
-
With proliferation of "AI" - is bug reporting DEFINITELY and REALLY useless ? AKA "who cares ".....
I think it's irrelative who/what generated/wrote the code, the question is about developing bug-self-reporting features built into the code. Companies don't like to spend money needlessly. It would be big expense to develop a bug-self-reporting feature to look out for bugs that may or may not ever happen. What is the definition of 'bug'? Bad usage and uneducated usage of a feature is different than a bug. Does a bug cover a feature that works correctly as originally designed/coded but the user needs the feature to work differently? Is it a bug if a user 'thinks' a feature is broke because they didn't read the help manual to learn how to use the feature, so they reported it? AI would not flag these as issues, but the user most likely would report them. From experience, I've learned (RI not AI) that users of applications will try to find a work-around before reporting a bug/issue, and if they find a work-around, they often never report the bug. And that brings in a whole separate topic about logging usage of features, usage flow, to monitor how users a using or misusing features.
-
Some humans are hopeless at writing code, most are barely adequate and some are brilliant at it. The same will apply to AI systems. The first few have been rushed into service by suits who want to test the water (and maybe make a few quick bucks), but I have no doubt that in time there will be specialist code-writing AI systems, trained to do that job, that will work very well. Equally AI debugging systems trained to do that will also emerge. But I question whether the present crop can be called "intelligence". They do not think, they repeat what they have been "taught". They are just moderately sophisticated computer programs. When asking the same question or setting the same task repeatedly returns better and better answers (confirming that the system is actually considering previous answers and thinking a bit more about it), and showing signs of imagination in their thinking, only then will I consider the label "AI" appropriate.
haughtonomous wrote:
but I have no doubt that in time there will be specialist code-writing AI systems
Why? Why would they attempt to specialize to a market that has 27 million (in the world) when they could specialize to the average consumer - facebook with 3 billion users, google with 8.5 billion searches a day? Then consider that World of Warcraft has about 8 million monthly players. Not as many programmers but if you integrate into the game then it exposes all of them. But with programmers you would need to sell to each. And much easier to provide value for WoW. Or the number of people that watch soccer is about half of the population of the world. Even just in the US 20 million probably bet on soccer matches. So do something that helps them to decide on what bets to place. Again much easier than attempting to support programming.
-
AI is created by a species that hardly can be considered themselves. How can you trust AI when it is created by people that still fight wars, discriminate, and basically did not evolve since the stone age.
Stupidity is unrelated to intelligence.
-
I think it's irrelative who/what generated/wrote the code, the question is about developing bug-self-reporting features built into the code. Companies don't like to spend money needlessly. It would be big expense to develop a bug-self-reporting feature to look out for bugs that may or may not ever happen. What is the definition of 'bug'? Bad usage and uneducated usage of a feature is different than a bug. Does a bug cover a feature that works correctly as originally designed/coded but the user needs the feature to work differently? Is it a bug if a user 'thinks' a feature is broke because they didn't read the help manual to learn how to use the feature, so they reported it? AI would not flag these as issues, but the user most likely would report them. From experience, I've learned (RI not AI) that users of applications will try to find a work-around before reporting a bug/issue, and if they find a work-around, they often never report the bug. And that brings in a whole separate topic about logging usage of features, usage flow, to monitor how users a using or misusing features.