"Working together, these agents function more like a digital QA team than a set of tools." No. They. Don't. Testing cannot be automated. What the author seems

"Working together, these agents function more like a digital QA team than a set of tools." No. They. Don't. Testing cannot be automated. What the author seems to think is that testing is just an elaborate output checking process. This process, although useful, does not reproduce what a tester-- who is a real person-- does. What the author is describing is a tool that they believe is especially flexible or powerful. It could be that. Or it could be more of an elaborate placebo that makes you think the product has been well tested, when it has been only shallowly tested. The testing is done by the tester who uses this tool. That tester must guide it and analyze its output. The tester, being a fully socialized and accountable human being, is at least capable of taking responsibility for the work. The tester is not some magic box you find lying on a shelf at the Old Wise Man's Shop of Wonders. I found this article because I am developing training for testers on how to responsibly apply AI tools to testing. It's an interesting article with more than zero content to it. I with the author did not feel the need to indirectly denigrate hardworking and skilled testers with such hyperbole.