This is really funny to read, as I have encountered way more bugs in software in the past year than ever.

Is this just a promotion post for their "Replay QA™" feature?

It boils down to "other products find the issue and leave the root cause + fix to your agent, our product finds the issue + root cause and leaves the fix to your agent".

Who says I want your agent to root cause? Other products already give me the repro steps, video, trace, network logs, etc, and my agent is in a much better position in terms of context and setup to find the root cause and proper fix.

Here is my crazy list of ideas for less buggy web apps: 1) care 2) understanding why a change is made/needed before making it 3) deleting code 4) simplifying and removing unneeded features

I actually think it would go entirely different way, since more and more 'ordinary' users would delegate whatever they need to use app for to 'their' agent instead of using app directly.

Agents have infinite patience, and they would go churn through most horrible buggy UIs out there to eventually achieve the goal, which is even more ironic, given that those UIs would be done by same agents in the first place.

For humans UX is already dead.

Makes me smile, seems ai written too. Agents will never fix this mess, it's upon us. But not in the way you're thinking. Asking agents to fix the mess they've been trained on, that they work on and they're made of it's just blindness utopia. We "just" need to part ways with current platforms(talking to you web) and build better abstractions and paradigms. The web plarform as is can't be saved anymore especially from us. It says a lot that many people get excited for a damn dialog html feature that we needed 20 years ago and it's also uncomplete

Vibe coder sounds more legitimate than bug breeder.

AI can fix a bug just from a description and logs. I have never seen replication to be an issue. Replication was more important for human bug fixing as you needed to be able to tinker with it.

“Observability” is one of my least favorite buzzwords of the past year. It describes nothing new, aside from a general sense of AI-ness.

But can it read the minds of developed to know what the intended behavior is, or even if a bug, what the desired fix is?

Actual developer: Hm, download button's not working. What's the href/onclick doing? Oh, there isn't one. Fixed. Whatever this shit is: Thing not work, need more AI

Nothing about intent. A lot of bugs are correctly implemented but do the wrong thing. Actually in my experience these far outweigh the classic code bugs when it comes to web apps. I think that is the interesting problem to solve (and would have the highest user impact)

And now we are going to have to deal with this animal.

The "AI Bugfixer Extraordinaire"..

Sigh, do us all a favor and go back into whatever crack you crawled out of.

[flagged]

[dead]

[dead]