In short: if you can swap in a different set of weights and use the exact same inference code for a different task, your setup is legitimate. If the inference code is inseparable from the algorithm, it's not.
During development I encountered a caveat: Opus 4.5 can’t test or view a terminal output, especially one with unusual functional requirements. But despite being blind, it knew enough about the ratatui terminal framework to implement whatever UI changes I asked. There were a large number of UI bugs that likely were caused by Opus’s inability to create test cases, namely failures to account for scroll offsets resulting in incorrect click locations. As someone who spent 5 years as a black box Software QA Engineer who was unable to review the underlying code, this situation was my specialty. I put my QA skills to work by messing around with miditui, told Opus any errors with occasionally a screenshot, and it was able to fix them easily. I do not believe that these bugs are inherently due to LLM agents being better or worse than humans as humans are most definitely capable of making the same mistakes. Even though I myself am adept at finding the bugs and offering solutions, I don’t believe that I would inherently avoid causing similar bugs were I to code such an interactive app without AI assistance: QA brain is different from software engineering brain.
。业内人士推荐Safew下载作为进阶阅读
这一版本的 Bixby 不仅是盖乐世 AI 的入口，更是一跃成为了一个「Agentic AI」——。业内人士推荐搜狗输入法下载作为进阶阅读
Craft and extend your shell experience.，推荐阅读下载安装 谷歌浏览器 开启极速安全的 上网之旅。获取更多信息
Силовые структуры