Live Debate on ‘Human Intelligence Software Testing (HIST)’

Adopt or Avoid? Good or Bad? Hype is loud, the proof is thin, but only the strongest approach will win. On 12 September, a live Debate on ‘Human Intelligence Software Testing (HIST)’ took place, with Joe Colantonio, Founder of TestGuild, moderating the discussion between Ruslan Desyatnikov and Iosif Itkin. The session began with opening statements, followed by a head-to-head debate examining whether this new testing philosophy represents a genuine breakthrough or a misstep:

Ruslan Desyatnikov: ‘HIST defines a new era of testing in a world over-obsessed with automation and AI: disciplined, intelligent, and risk-aware, where quality is validated through evidence and metrics, not assumptions.’

Iosif Itkin: ‘It is a textbook example of what makes a test approach bad.’

Iosif Itkin

 

CEO & Co-Founder, Exactpro

Ruslan Desyatnikov

 

Founder & CEO of QA Mentor

Parties agreed to present arguments on the three propositions:

  1. Fluff or Substance – HIST is mostly fluff (Yes/No)
  2. Fair or Misleading – HIST uses strawman comparisons and misrepresents (Yes/No)
  3. Efficiency Impact – HIST recommendations lead to bad testing (Yes/No)

Software testing is an information service. Its goal is to provide stakeholders with objective information about the defects present in their system. Using AI in software testing can help harness the power of exploratory data analysis and big data analytics to enhance the generation of test ideas and the interpretation of test results.

Contact us for a comprehensive review and analysis of your test strategy.

You might be interested:

TestStrategyAndFrameworkForRAGs