I hear you and to be clear, this isn’t about replacing talented QA teams. It’s about offloading the repetitive and pattern-based parts of QA so human testers can focus on more strategic, exploratory, and usability-driven work.

In the case I saw, the agent handled things like regression patterns, diff analysis, and known-risk detection across thousands of past issues. The QA team actually became more valuable because they weren’t stuck rerunning the same test plan for the fifth time that week. It was augmentation, not replacement.

That said, I totally agree if a team is just rubber-stamping PRs, the issue isn’t automation, it’s expectations and leadership.

100% agree with the need to elevate QA rather than replace it. With Actory AI https://actory-website.vercel.app/, we found the sweet spot was letting the agent watch for regressions and PR risk patterns, while human testers focused on creative edge cases and UX paths. QA gets more strategic, less repetitive—morale actually went up once they weren’t stuck rerunning the same flows.

We are pre launch check us out!