> One of the nice things about writing new tests by hand is you've got someone who can judge if it's the system being stupid or if it's the test. This is an i

> One of the nice things about writing new tests by hand is you've got someone who can judge if it's the system being stupid or if it's the test. This is an instance of a more general problem, which I call "the problem of unwanted change". If you have an automated system which can change itself, how do you know a change is actually intended/correct or merely a symptom of a bug, failure or imperfect knowledge the automation has? That's why I think human supervision is always needed to an extent, to determine what scenario has occured. This happens in all sorts of systems. And people tend to think they can solve this with just another layer of automation like here. Testing was originally invented as a way to check if the program works correctly. If you automate it, you will face the same problem, just with a bigger code (in the form of tests rather than assertions).