liveBook · Manning

Quality

As explained in Software Testing with Generative AI

The degree to which a language-model response is legible, useful, accurate, and appropriate for its intended purpose.

Quality measures whether a language-model response is legible, useful, accurate, and appropriate for a specific task. Hallucination risk matters alongside response usefulness. section 2.5.1

Assess quality by:

  • Defining the problem and intended use before choosing a model. section 2.5.1
  • Trying different models with comparable prompts and examining their outputs. section 2.5.1
  • Balancing response quality against practical factors such as model size, cost, and platform capabilities. section 2.5.1

Code-generation comparison

Experimentation may show that OpenAI GPT models produce better code examples than Google Gemini for a particular task; the result should guide a deliberate choice rather than a general ranking. section 2.5.1

How Software Testing with Generative AI covers it

How deep it goes
Defines practical criteria and recommends comparative experimentation, but stops short of a formal scoring framework.
Examples
Uses comparative code-generation results from OpenAI GPT models and Google Gemini to illustrate task-specific quality.
What it assumes
Assumes a defined use case and the ability to provide prompts, inspect outputs, and make comparative judgments.
What you can do after
Evaluate and select models by comparing their responses to prompts for a defined practical problem.
How it connects
Connects response quality with hallucination, prompt engineering, model comparison, parameter count, and training data.

Also explained in

Compare how 5 books explain quality →

Related concepts

This explainer was generated by Manning's knowledge graph from the text of Software Testing with Generative AI. The section links point to the parts of the book it draws on.