So the actual value here is not "13% of all issues fixed for the cost of compute," but more like "a discount on human time for 13% of the issues". But you also have to factor in the time taken on the 87% of issues where leading you down a wrong path can be adding time versus human only. It's not clear to me how it all shakes out, and would require large-sample experiments with humans to determine. I would bet the final margins are small though.

Budget-myopic executives already tried transfering that work to cheaper labor markets, but it worked much less than they expected and most ended up with unmaintainable software and loss of any hope for an actual engineering advantage against competitors. There's nothing new here.

There will be organizations that find a good and smart use for fully automated code generation, just like there is for outsourcing/offshoring, but it's not a universal win to just go with what's "cheaper" and organizations that don't look at the big picture are (as usual) trading short-term accounting gains for long-term value erosion.