I don't see any theoretical reason that this weakness must remain for longer than six months or so. I mean, both Claude and GPT are very good at doing code reviews and that's a form of QA.
I don't see any theoretical reason that this weakness must remain for longer than six months or so. I mean, both Claude and GPT are very good at doing code reviews and that's a form of QA.
None of that is because AIs aren't good. It's just plain information.
An AI could sit there and interrogate the user for this information. In that alone, it would already have exceeded what a lot of people are going to want from a system like this. People, normal people, want AIs to magic stuff into existence, not spend hours interrogating them for a design requirements elicitation. That's a barrier a lot of people will not cross, and the AI companies, who fully realize that, aren't building that way.
Normal people do not want to even do the work it takes to fully specify a problem, even if an AI walks them right through it, let alone the verification that the work is correct, and actually what they intended rather than what they asked for.
And of course, in practice, AIs are not emitting bug-free code, miss entire requirements at a shot, and have a variety of other characteristic failure modes in this space that I expect are fundamental to the LLM architecture and aren't ever going to leave. If they continue to be able to make bigger systems they will simply continue to make correspondingly big errors and omissions in the process. No comment as to what the next generation AI architecture will do, though.