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  |  AI, Recorders, Script Debt

AI vs. Recorders: How Appvance Eliminates Script Debt

Editor's Picks

Tag Cloud

“AI-powered testing” can describe very different capabilities. One system turns a documented test case into executable automation. Another explores application behavior to identify meaningful tests nobody documented. Both generate tests. But they solve different problems. Understanding GENI vs. AISG Bug Hunter starts with that distinction: GENI automates existing test intent, while AISG Bug Hunter uses

Your regression suite passes. Every documented test case runs successfully. The release looks ready. Then a customer takes a perfectly valid path through your application—and something breaks. Nobody skipped a test. Nobody ignored a requirement. The problem was a workflow your team never thought to include. That is one of software testing’s hardest challenges: how

Your regression suite passes. Your code coverage looks strong. Then a customer encounters a defect in a workflow nobody tested. How does that happen? Coverage metrics answer different questions. Testing every documented requirement, executing most of your code, and exploring the application states users encounter are related—but distinct—goals. Understanding those differences helps QA teams see

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.