<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Artificial Intelligence &#8211; BleepingBugs</title>
	<atom:link href="https://bleepingbugs.com/tag/artificial-intelligence/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://bleepingbugs.com</link>
	<description>Candid Takes On QA</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 04:33:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Testing LLM Apps Isn&#8217;t That Different</title>
		<link>https://bleepingbugs.com/testing-llm-apps-isnt-that-different/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bleeping Bugs]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 04:06:50 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Shower Thoughts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Artificial Intelligence]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://bleepingbugs.com/?p=557</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[There&#8217;s a common belief that testing LLM-based apps requires throwing out the whole testing playbook. Because outputs are non-deterministic, the thinking goes, traditional testing just doesn&#8217;t apply. I get it. But what I&#8217;ve seen happen in practice is teams falling back on manual spot-checking and calling it done. At one company I worked at we&#46;&#46;&#46;]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There’s a common belief that testing LLM-based apps requires throwing out the whole testing playbook. Because outputs are non-deterministic, the thinking goes, traditional testing just doesn’t apply. I get it. But what I’ve seen happen in practice is teams falling back on manual spot-checking and calling it done. At one company I worked at we were building a chatbot to calculate the cost…</p>
<p><a href="https://bleepingbugs.com/testing-llm-apps-isnt-that-different/" rel="nofollow">Source</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
