Hacker News Reader

Exactly, also it lacks a lot of context as to why they did that.

Possible (probable?) scenario:

- Marketing: "we found and fixed lots of bugs thanks to AI"

- Reality: the KPI is now to fix as many bugs as possible with the help of AI, so they used AI to search old and easy bugs in the backlog, and then fixed it manually

View on HN

Huh? Maybe a third scenario is that AI helped fix the bugs? Like described in the actual post you are replying to? This level of conspiracy theory is getting a bit ridiculous.

I think you’re right, my base assumption is that the models can code and can fix bugs, and can code more in parallel and faster than humans at a lower cost.

If Google are tackling lower value bugs with AI the number is in a way inflated compared to some utility measure (fixing a smaller number of worse bugs could be preferable) but it’s still things fixed.

There's no reasoning with the folks who are anti-ai and claim LLM's cannot produce anything worthwhile. They are basically flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers at this point. There is literally no amount of evidence that will convince them. They will always say that LLMs cannot produce anything but garbage just like the anti-vaxxers who state vaccines just cause autism. They are both fucking morons who no one with any grip on reality should indulge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com