<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>AI on Bug’s End</title><link>https://ana.qa.rs/blog/tags/ai/</link><description>Recent content in AI on Bug’s End</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 01:30:00 +0200</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://ana.qa.rs/blog/tags/ai/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Your AI-Generated Test Suite is a Hot Mess (And No, a Prompt Won’t Fix It)</title><link>https://ana.qa.rs/blog/posts/ai-generated-tests-hot-mess/</link><pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 01:30:00 +0200</pubDate><guid>https://ana.qa.rs/blog/posts/ai-generated-tests-hot-mess/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;There is a daydream floating around C-suite offices lately. It goes like this: &lt;em&gt;Tickets go in, AI writes the code, AI writes the tests, and the Product Owner (PO) just glances at a dashboard over morning coffee. Quality? Handled.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It sounds efficient. In reality? It’s a &lt;strong&gt;regression nightmare&lt;/strong&gt; waiting to happen.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If you think you can replace a dedicated QA with a &amp;ldquo;closed-loop&amp;rdquo; of AI and developers, here is why you are actually automating your way to a faster disaster.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>