The following is a post I wrote for the EuroSTAR blog as KPMG UK are going to be at the expo this year up in Scotland…hope to see you there!

Principles Drive Trust in AI

The pace that “artificial intelligence” (AI) is being incorporated into software testing products and services creates immense ethical and technological challenges for an IT industry that’s so far out in front of regulation, they don’t even seem to be playing the same sport.

It’s difficult to keep up with the shifting sands of AI in testing right now, as vendors search for a viable product to sell, and most testing clients I speak to these days haven’t begun incorporating an AI element to their test approach and frankly, the distorted signal coming from the testing business hasn’t helped. What I’m hearing from clients are big concerns around data privacy and security, transparency on models and good evidence, and the ethical issues of using AI in testing.

I’ve spent a good part of my public career in testing talking about risk, how to communicate it to leadership, and what good testing contributes to that process in helping identify threats to your business. So I’m not here to tell you “no” to AI in testing, but talk about how KPMG is trying to manage through the current mania and what we think are the big rocks we need to move to get there with care and at pace.

I first got to know James in 2014 when the Context-Driven community was organising (including your truly) against the rent seeking of ISO 29119 test standard, and as co-chair of CAST for the Association for Software Testing, I invited him to give a talk on Standards – promoting quality or restricting competition?

His blog is a “must read” for any serious software tester, and his clear-eyed work on investigating the Post Office Horizon IT Scandal (including his submission) is the benchmark our community should be striving for when it comes to integrity, ethics, and professional standards.

Listen in as we discuss what went wrong at the Post Office, good evidence, the role of government in technology, the brewing collision between regulation and IT, and how after so long in this business you can keep your teeth sharp! Enjoy!

Links from discussion: What is Good Evidence – Griffin Jones EU fines Apple €500M and Meta €200M for breaking Europe’s digital rules DORA Act EU AI Act UK Murder Prediction US Autism Database

Just to be clear about something: if you are selling or advocating for some sort of AI in software testing tool, framework, agent, model, or defect-predict-O-nator and you are NOT focusing primarily on safety, security, or HARM – you are NOT doing your job.

The testing industry has practically abdicated its role in this regard, so it is up to individuals to be the vanguard and it is not panic, job insecurity, or resistance to change driving their valid concerns.

I am seeing some very senior people with lots of influence making IMO/E poor decisions on how to frame where we we are with AI in testing – what it is, what it isn’t, what it can do, and what it shouldn’t.

For even more clarity, if you are dismissing concerns about artificial intelligence in testing, quality engineering, or test automation as any of those things you are partially responsible for what happens when those tools are used to create software and systems that do harm.

Period.

Love seeing all these AI fanboys in software testing discovering for the first time that testing isn’t about technology – that’s the easy part!

“Wow – I just found out that testing is HUMAN centred activity and that inconvenient, squishy people part can’t be automated away…I’ll call it, TBH (Testing by Humans), or XTH (Experience Tested Humanity), or maybe…HUXTR (Human Uplifted Experience Testing Robot)!”

They sound like those techbro goofs who thought they discovered bus stops, but I guess that’s what happens when you use ChatGPT as a search engine – down the memory hole it goes!

The LLM market must be peaking as we seem to have hit a ceiling on what’s being sold in AI in testing…we live in hype – I mean hope!

Very happy to announce I’ll be participating in TestBash 2025 through their Leading with Quality day down in Brighton. Hope to see you there!

A one-day educational experience to help business lead with expanding quality engineering and testing practices.

The quality space is evolving. This presents difficult challenges, with it also comes immense opportunity. The world is changing. Technology is becoming more complex. We need to innovate our ways, by exploring together.

What’s more… Our identity as people who care about quality needs love. We are the believers. We understand that quality does not happen on its own. It’s not just about testing or bugs, it’s about the whole system.

We want to help you lead this change. Together, we can find a pathway forward.

Who is leading the day?

To help us explore the challenges of quality engineering we have four good people leading the day.

• Nicola Sedgwick: Quality-focussed leader and avid enthusiast of agile ways of working who loves the way technology can enhance and transform the world around us.
• Ash Hynie:  A technical cultural strategist who propels organizational objectives to better a company’s diversity, inclusion, and belonging practices by enhancing access, equity, and people development programs.
• Barry Ehigiator: A seasoned professional in software development and testing, who is passionate about empowering individuals and teams to deliver quality software products to their clients.
• Keith Klain: Director of Quality Engineering leading software quality, automation, process improvement, risk management, and digital transformation initiatives for retail banking and capital markets clients

Happy to announce I’ll be back at Agile Testing Days this year as a Team Coach!

There are lots on offer, and the first teams that register get a free 45-minute team coaching slot during the conference. So if you find yourself asking questions like:

• How can I ensure that testing has a seat at the management table?
• What is the role of testing in release decisions?
• How do I increase the value of testing?
• How do ethics relate to testing?

…then come find me in Potsdam! Hope to see you there!

File another one under “what could possibly go wrong”. From the article:

“Statewatch says data from people not convicted of any criminal offence will be used as part of the project, including personal information about self-harm and details relating to domestic abuse. Officials strongly deny this, insisting only data about people with at least one criminal conviction has been used.”

It will be interesting to watch the gymnastics to try to get the in compliance with the EU AI Act that comes into force in August. The act specifically deals with safety and potential harm through the risks of AI.

I’ve been friends with Ash Hynie for over 10 years ever since we started hanging out in NYC working in QA engineering and developer advocacy. She has since gone on to greatness through various consulting gigs and heading up the DEI program at Credit Karma to now founding CountrPT, an AI powered career management platform.

Check out our chat about career development, performative DEI, being a good manager, and a lot about how to look out for yourself in today’s job market…enjoy!

On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? Timnit Gebru Emily Bender Culture is More Than a Mindset Agile Testing Days Ministry of Testing Angela Davis

A quick message for those struggling with the mudslide of artificial intelligence mania and feeling like they are missing out or question the validity of claims being made by AI fanboys.

It is entirely possible to view AI in software testing critically and not have some form of syndrome the AI fanboy club would suggest is wrong with you. In fact, it is absolutely a requirement of the testing community to look at any claim with scepticism, as IME that is a large part of our job as testers.

Yes, things feel like they are moving very fast right now but I can assure you, no serious person in the software testing industry is dismissing the impact or implications of AI in testing.  And for some practical advice to let you know you’re not crazy, here are some serious folks I am following closely on the frontlines: Dagmar Monett, Timnit Gebru, and Ed Zitron who recently wrote this in his great piece “The Phony Comforts of AI Optimism”:

“Criticism — skepticism — takes a certain degree of bravery, or at least it does so when you make fully-formed arguments.”