Blog
By Kevin Surace | AI, QA
Why AI in QA Has Been Such a Disappointment
There is a quiet truth in enterprise QA right now.
Many teams feel let down.
For the last several years, vendors have promised an AI revolution in testing. Autonomous agents. Self healing frameworks. Copilots that would “change everything.” Yet when you talk to QA leaders privately, the story is different.
Most Popular
By Kevin Parker | API, QA
By Kevin Parker | Kubernetes, QA, AI
By Kevin Parker | AI, Recorders, Script Debt
AI vs. Recorders: How Appvance Eliminates Script Debt
Editor's Picks
Ask a generic AI assistant to write a Playwright test, and it can produce something impressive in seconds. The code looks right. The steps seem logical. The promise is compelling: describe what you want, get automation back. But code generation is only one part of test automation. A production system must connect the test’s intent
Playwright has become an important part of modern test automation—and for good reason. It gives developers and QA engineers a powerful framework for creating reliable browser automation across modern applications. But choosing Playwright doesn’t mean you’ve chosen an enterprise quality platform. It means you’ve chosen a framework. For organizations evaluating enterprise Playwright testing, the bigger
AI can write a Playwright script. That’s impressive. But for enterprise QA, it’s also just the beginning. Today, general-purpose AI models can generate test code from a prompt. Teams can combine Playwright with AI models and MCP to build sophisticated internal testing solutions. But generating automation and operating enterprise QA are two very different challenges.
For decades, test automation has been built around one thing: the script. Teams write scripts. Engineers maintain scripts. Applications change. Scripts break. Engineers fix them. Then the cycle starts again. But AI-first automation is challenging that model. What happens when scripts are no longer the center of QA? The impact goes far beyond faster test
For decades, test automation has revolved around one core asset: the script. QA teams write scripts. Automation engineers maintain scripts. Frameworks organize scripts. And when applications change, teams spend enormous amounts of time fixing scripts. But what happens when scripts are no longer the center of QA? The answer isn’t simply faster automation. It changes
For decades, software testing has revolved around scripts. Teams wrote test cases. Engineers translated them into automation scripts. Those scripts became the foundation of regression testing, and over time they grew into massive libraries that required constant maintenance. The problem is that scripts were never the real asset. Business intent was. A script is simply