Ah, this is a really practical challenge! The way I think about it is, you don’t have to slow down your releases to get AI to help catch those tricky, variability-induced bugs. One approach is to run AI-driven exploratory tests in parallel, kind of like having multiple mini-testing sessions happening at the same time. Focus those tests on the areas that matter most, your high-risk parts, so the AI is always looking where it matters.
The cool part is that lightweight AI agents can suggest what to test next on the fly, adapting based on what they’ve already seen. And, by feeding the results back into your risk models continuously, your testing “smarts” improve over time. Essentially, you get a cycle where AI helps you explore intelligently without becoming a bottleneck in your high-velocity releases.
Ah, this is a really practical concern! When you’re using heuristics in AI, it’s true that there’s always a trade-off between speed and accuracy. To make sure we don’t oversimplify things, I usually take a few steps:
-
Check against reality – I validate the outputs of the heuristics against real-world results to see if they actually make sense. It’s like a reality check for the AI.
-
Leverage domain knowledge – Bringing in expert knowledge helps guide the heuristics so they don’t go off track. You’re essentially giving the AI some guardrails.
-
Handle the tricky cases separately – For those edge cases where heuristics might fail, I combine them with probabilistic or more detailed models. That way, the AI is fast for most scenarios but still reliable when things get complex.
So, it’s really about striking a balance: get the speed benefits of heuristics without blindly trusting them, and always have a way to catch the exceptions.
It usually involves a mix of all three steps. Start with trial runs on the key workflows to see how the tool performs in real situations. Next, measure its impact, check things like efficiency, coverage, and whether it’s causing errors. Finally, involve your stakeholders to review the findings and decide whether to continue using the tool or retire it.
It’s basically a cycle of testing, evaluating, and collaborating, so decisions are based on real insights rather than guesswork.
In most teams, when a tool starts slowing things down, they don’t just stick with it blindly. Usually, they explore other options to see if there’s something that works better, measure how the current tool is affecting productivity and test coverage, and bring in key stakeholders to make sure any change aligns with the bigger goals of the team or project. It’s really about making thoughtful decisions rather than switching tools on a whim.
Ah, testing non-deterministic ML systems can feel a bit tricky because the outputs aren’t always consistent. From what Isabel Evans discussed, here’s a practical way to think about it:
- Coverage goals: Focus on testing all the important functional paths, the edge cases, and different types of model outputs. Basically, make sure you’re hitting all the scenarios where your model might behave unexpectedly.
- Tolerance bands: Since ML predictions can be probabilistic, it’s useful to define “acceptable ranges” for outputs. This way, small variations don’t raise false alarms, but significant deviations are caught.
- Automated regression tests: Keep track of how your model behaves over time. Run automated tests comparing outputs across versions and flag anything that falls outside your tolerance bands. This helps you catch regressions without manually checking everything.
In short, it’s about combining smart coverage, realistic expectations for variability, and automated checks to keep your model reliable as it evolves.
Hey All, this is a classic challenge! When you’re dealing with AI that doesn’t always behave the same way every time, you don’t want to rush delivery and accidentally break the user experience. A practical approach I like is to test smarter, not harder:
-
Start with the most critical workflows first—the parts of your app users rely on the most. That way, you’re protecting the areas that matter most.
-
Use sampling strategies instead of testing every possible scenario. You don’t need to check everything all the time; just enough to catch real issues.
-
Leverage parallel testing and anomaly detection so you can run tests faster and still spot unexpected behavior quickly.
Basically, it’s about finding that sweet spot where you can iterate quickly without making your app fragile. Test strategically, focus on what matters, and let smart tools help you catch the surprises.
Yes! Idea-t is really handy when it comes to tricky, AI-driven, or agent-based systems. It helps testers focus on the parts that matter most by highlighting high-risk workflows, suggesting paths for exploration, and pointing out areas that might be missing coverage. Basically, it’s like having a smart guide that keeps you on track so you can be confident your tests are thorough, even in complex, unpredictable environments.