10 Years After ‘Testing Is Dead’
Lessons, Misconceptions, and the Path Forward
Testing Is Dead. Oh Wait, It’s Alive Again.
In 2016, Google’s GTAC conference1 closed with a theatrical statement—Alberto Savoia, dressed as the Grim Reaper, took the stage to declare the death of software testing. It marked the end of a decade-long run for one of the most respected conferences in the test automation space.
That same year, James Whittaker—who introduced Alberto Savoia at GTAC 2016—echoed the sentiment by formally pronouncing testing dead. The industry took note—and took action. Testing roles across Google, Microsoft, and other major tech companies were eliminated or folded into broader engineering functions. The message was clear: testing, as a distinct discipline, was no longer seen as essential.
And yet, testing never truly disappeared. Last year, Whittaker himself declared its resurrection2, recognizing that despite advances in automation, DevOps, and now AI, the need for thoughtful, context-aware testing had not gone away—it had only been misunderstood.
Today, as we see another wave of hype promising to replace testers with AI, it’s worth revisiting the real story: testing didn’t die. It evolved. And it's more relevant than ever.
Testing Never Died—It Evolved
The “testing is dead” narrative is not new. It flared up when Selenium went open source, flared up again when automation tools flooded the market, and is now back with AI.
But here’s the truth: testing didn’t die. It had to evolve—just like the rest of engineering did.
And yes, some folks are now proclaiming that engineering is dead too—thanks to AI and the rise of "vibe coding" culture. But most of us know better. We understand that engineering isn’t dead—it’s adapting. So is testing.
What Actually Died? Bad Testing.
Let’s be honest—some parts of software testing deserve to die. And in many organizations, they already have. I’m talking about the outdated practices that reduce testing to little more than requirement verification, test case checklists, and meaningless green bars on dashboards. These shallow, mechanical approaches give the illusion of quality without actually delivering it.
When testing becomes synonymous with “box checking,” it loses its value—and rightfully gets cut. Verifying known behaviors through scripted steps is something automation can (and should) handle. What should die is the kind of testing that adds no insight, no risk evaluation, and no exploration beyond what the product owner wrote in a user story.
This kind of “testing theater”—where success is measured by how many test cases pass, not whether we’ve uncovered meaningful problems—has long been a drag on engineering culture. It doesn’t scale, it doesn’t adapt, and it certainly doesn’t help us build better software.
Testing Is Not Box Checking
Automation is for checking the knowns—things we expect the system to do.
Real testing? That’s about the unknowns. It’s investigative. It’s creative. It’s risk analysis. It’s modeling user behavior. It’s edge cases and system thinking. No script or AI can fully replace that.
Misunderstood by Many—Including Testers
Why does the “testing is dead” idea keep coming back?
Many testers don’t see it as a craft.
Many companies confuse automation with testing.
Some automation engineers are not inclined to learn to test—they wait for someone else to tell them what to automate.
Some testers still only verify requirements, not value or risk.
This isn't just a leadership problem. It's an industry-wide problem, and yes—it includes us testers.
Testing Never Stopped—It Just Went Underground
Even when companies cut testing roles, testing still happened:
Engineers continued unit testing (or at least, I hope they did).
Customers unknowingly became the testers (often painfully).
Teams tested without testers—often poorly, often late.
What those 2016 declarations really meant was that testing as a separate role was no longer needed. But even that was a short-sighted take.
The Real Future of Testing Is Craft + Context
Testing is not just about bugs. It’s not just about tools. It’s about:
Understanding product risks
Communicating uncertainty
Modeling user behavior
Finding what others missed
And to do that well, testers need to level up.
How to Stay Relevant in Testing
If you want to thrive—despite the AI hype—here’s how to do it:
🎯 Understand Stakeholder Priorities
Some stakeholders prioritize speed, others care more about stability. Your job is to understand what matters most in context—and tailor your testing approach to support it.
🗞️ Become a Risk Communicator
Report your findings like a journalist. Neutral tone, high clarity, relevant insights.
🧠 Study Testing as a Discipline
Learn heuristics. Practice modeling. Understand systems thinking. Dive into testing theory—not just tools.
🛠️ Embrace Tools—but Wisely
Use automation, AI, observability, and monitoring—but as helpers, not replacements for your brain.
🌱 Build a Learner’s Mindset
Stay curious. Stay connected. Join the actual testing community—not just flashy LinkedIn threads.
Testing is alive—and thriving—in teams that understand its true value. It’s evolving fast, and if we want to stay in the game, we need to evolve too. Let’s stop waiting for validation from the same people who once called us obsolete. Let’s build a better testing future—together.
Drop a comment. Start the conversation. Let’s keep testing alive—by doing it better.
I remember 2016 and "Testing is Dead" buzz. I was managing a big group of testers and we were hiring like crazy. My staff was worried but I re-assured them that we were so far from the reality of these big tech companies. They have enough developpers, have a big attraction to hire good developpers and are not in high critical business line.
In my company, we are in the physical security industry and like in aeronautics or health; failures can have dramatical consequences. We could not just rely on going all automated testing. That can definitively be a good option for anyone offering online services or extending their stores to shop online; but not our business.
Furthermore, small to medium tech companies often struggle to have a good pool of software developpers; they need to stay competitive in the market and will keep their developpers on creating features for added value, leaving testing to "testers". I've often heard "when we will have time, we will automate all tests", but they never have time because leadership is always pushing them to create value while testers are doing a "good" job. It doesn't mean we are not implementing/improving test automation, but not as fast as we would like.
I totally agree that testing is a "craft"! As we are pushing more and more in Cloud Applications at my company, they've tried going without testers only to learn Software Developpers are far from being good testers, even with some coaching. Testers are back, and Quality/testing practices are enforced.
Thanks Alessandra for your excellent posts!!!
I really liked the "What Actually Died? Bad Testing" part — it’s so true. Some companies still proudly display green bars on dashboards, and that’s it. It’s actually a pity when a team isn’t open to new ideas or improvements.
On one of my projects, I suggested a new implementation, and another QA responded with: "Why do you need that? Does it work? Yes? Then don’t change anything, just skip it."
I was honestly shocked by that mindset.