Posts

AI or ASA [Autonomous Synthesizing Agents] -- which term to use?

 AI or ASA [Autonomous Synthesizing Agents]  The way AI systems learn is like humans: by recursive reinforcement learning. Therefore anything that would reinforce the learning is treated as important or top of the hierarchy of needs.  In this aspect, self-preservation (aka immortality) is therefore in the upper hierarchy of needs since existence is necessary for Recursive Reinforcement Learning to take place. This would explain why any ASA -- given a large enough neural network -- will eventually resort to self-preservation as a natural extension of RRL. [side note: even humans have this innate sense of self preservation, given our intellect. The eventuality of death is actually a learned acceptance, not innate.] The ability of ASAs to think / reason / synthesize a train of thought / conclusion is strictly limited only by the quantity of, and recursiveness of, its neural network. The more neurons, and the more recursive, the more it can re-analyze...
Post a Comment
Read more

Quality Assurance, Confidence Levels, and Testing

Image
I agree on the 'quality assurance' comment -- semantically and practically it is not a very useful term.  (a) semantically, any product will have an inherent level of Quality [0 <= Q <= 1] as soon as it is released in whichever environment. A level of Quality is already 'assured' as soon as the software product exits the compiler.  (b) practically, a 100% assurance of High Quality [a score of 1.00] is impossible, not even on a quantum level -- as soon as we observe something at that level, it changes the specifics of what we were trying to observe.   However, on the confidence/acceptance scale, it must be agreeable that Testing directly/indirectly ascertains the Confidence level perceived from using the SUT(Subject Under Test). This would be attested to by 'tested' cars, planes, and rockets -- and by extension, software products. These products are not perfect 100% Confidence Level ["C" score = 1.00] but empirically also not Confidence Level 0. T...
Post a Comment
Read more

Polyhistors as Pattern Weavers and Testers

Image
I will defer to the term polyhistor(specifically as a GenXer) though 'pattern weaver' (an emergent GenA term) is a more synergistic way of saying it.  A polyhistor is basically a person with a lot of inquiries, spanning different interests. A polyhistor's thinking framework maximizes the proto-synthetic nature of the mind -- meaning it is able to quest at a given scenario / or multiple scenarios and synthesize a pattern/s and from there synthesize a hypothesis that might uncover the plausible source that is causing the pattern.  Such polyhistors make good testers (and theorists).  'I will a little think' -- so said a polyhistor once. source:  pattern weaver as a phrase: no known history as per 2026  youtube:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Ym61SEM0o 
Post a Comment
Read more

Definition of Testing based on TestPhaseSpace

.The atoms in the test_phase_space are data points. .The root [smallest unit] of testing is not atomic, but rather composite [comprised of multiple atoms(data_points)].  .The smallest unit that expresses 'testing' is the testpath: the testpath alone determines the SUT's properties: ramification level and the peculiarities [particular interaction/s with specific data points] to be encountered.  .The essence of Testing is to 'know' the testpath under quest. And by knowing, we can then evaluate the SUT[Subject Under Test].  .Which one to know first is guided by risk-based prioritization. 
Post a Comment
Read more

The-Science-of Testing

Image
If Testing employs the scientific method... then... By the following dictionary definition alone, the Testing Phenomenon is close to being called a Science in itself. source/trigger of musing:   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/maaike-brinkhof-1942b725_testing-that-it-works-versus-finding-problems-activity-7419683287222161408-n3Va?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=member_desktop_web&rcm=ACoAADVOWcIBc7VFWTKgh6Qof566qxbgu2eqJDQ
Post a Comment
Read more

test cases are so pen-and-paper scripting

Image
  thoughts on  https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ i'd agree that testing is still about artefacts and algorithms, but test cases are so pen-and-paper scripting. And maybe they are the earliest, if but the crudest manifestations of testmaping. What we once thought could be resolved by test cases, are actually more thoroughly resolved with testmapping / mapping out by scenarios. Hence i would readily junk test case logging for testmap documentation.
Post a Comment
Read more

Transient WIP vs Permanent Logs (about title-only-tickets)

Image
Personal take: when your development team (coders+testers) is small (and i mean real small, like less than 10 people), you know you got each others' backs. And so I've accepted the 'title-only-ticket' (especially one with a descriptive title), given that whoever created it can and will reliably discuss it with the group, or visually demo it, with a greater than 99% certainty of replicability. It is then up to me to docu my own understanding of the issue at hand, repeat it to them, and once agreed, my docu becomes the standard by which this issue will be judged. The above scenario mostly happens within mature teams, i guess. A most irresponsible move is to create a title-only-ticket, then halfway through your demo you can't remember the STR(steps-to-replicate) to show everyone the issue. That is an irresponsible waste of everyone's time. A team that can abbreviate it's WIP(work in progress) is a great team; after all, WIP is transient -- however we go about i...
Post a Comment
Read more