What I like is that this is a measurable productivity increase that can be directly linked to AI and they go over their methodology. AI-positive posts skew heavily anecdotal and hyperbolic.
Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
371–380 of 668 posts
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#372So it uses less RAM now, right? ... right??
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can today develop a mobile app with 20 screens without ever reviewing any of the code generated. If you test each feature and have it iterate on your feedback, you can build a decent product in this way. Does it write too much code? Perhaps. Could I bring those 100k lines through code review in a team where some members nitpick? No. That does not change the fact that it works, and that you do not need to read the…
Unless the app is released and running on user’s device, your “it works” is on the level of hackathon’s demo. Being on prod has always been the true testing ground of code. It seems like when people are talking about production level quality and how the AI. should be helping them there, plenty of people comes up with their “it works on my machine” anecdotes.
Honestly, things have really changed in the past 6 months. Opus 4.5 got most of the way there, and Fable can now literally one-shot your run off the mill CRUD app.
I use a few of them daily. While there are still bugs, there are significantly less than there used to be back when everything was being maintained in my spare time.
Still not Netflix/Google standard yet, but definitely better than the average side project or pre-AI Bangalore special.
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tests! Unit tests, integration tests, random adhoc scripts. You know - TDD! Tests onli validate the presence of bugs, not their abscence (Djikstra). I'll also add that tests look at outputs and don't care how those outputs are derived. E.g. code filtering the entire db in memory will be fine in tests.
Haven't you ever written tests that assert that certain things happen or do not happen along the way? We use mocks all the time to, say, make sure that the code doesn't load the entire db in memory. Then it's there as a regression if somebody down the line wants to do that exact thing for some reason.
Unfortunately, with LLMs you have to write these tests for every little thing.
And then there's the endless code duplication, reinventing of existing code and libraries etc.
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#375I've recently been using AI a lot for performance optimisation during a particularly busy period at work. I would say it was almost completely useless at the high-level direction - it would point out suspicious parts of SQL queries for example but on back to back testing these almost never resulted in any performance change. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that it made making the actual changes I identified much e…
The useless suggestions are exhausting. One of my co-workers uses Claude for all asynchronous communication, including Slack messages, Jira comments, code reviews, and emails. Every single message from him, literally every time he communicates, it's a massive wall of text, overflowing with scope-creep suggestions like nothing I've ever seen before. It's impossible to ask him a simple question and get a simple answer.…
That's bizarre. What does his manager think of that? I can't fathom keeping around someone that is basically a chatbot interface.
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats fine but then Fable 5 should have requested this information instead of blundering along. So why didn't it? An expert human asked to do the same task would have surely asked for the additional data.
Let me translate this for you: "I have not spent the time cultivating the soft skills necessary to leverage this tool successfully therefore it's the tool that sucks."
No one in this chain said it sucks. Any sort of criticism towards LLM workflows is constantly met with these kinds of absurd statements. I've never seen any other tool with this kind of mentality from proponents
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#377On a related note: Visual Studio still has dialogs that cannot be resized, even after years of people begging Microsoft to make them resizable. Shouldn't this be a trivial fix for AI? I'll believe in AI when I get to resize my Configuration Manager! https://developercommunity.microsoft.com/t/Resize-configurat...
Honestly, there's a 50-50 chance that you'd be able to do this in Claude today, even without access to the source code.
Just open up a configuration window manually, tell if that the Window is open and it can pull apart the executable from there.
Biggest impediment would be Fable safeguards if it tries to decompile.
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me translate this for you: "I have not spent the time cultivating the soft skills necessary to leverage this tool successfully therefore it's the tool that sucks."
Even if true, this kind of response is unhelpful and fosters dismissal of your point. This kind of attitude more broadly paints AI advocates as cultists because they refuse to engage beyond "you're doing it wrong". How about give pointers on "doing it right?"
Exactly. I'm a huge FP fan. When someone doesn't like FP I don't lecture them on how they're holding it wrong. I usually assume that, unsurprisingly, the tool doesn't suit every problem or there may be a design issue in the tool they ran into
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you tried to prompt inject your colleague? It works wonderfully with my boss.
Really? Explain please haha
I'm not that guy but I've advised end users submitting tickets to prompt inject the importance of the ticket so that it gets triaged higher by lazy people only using AI and not actually reviewing.
Not sure how efficacious but I know the reviewer is just relying on the AI decision.
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very hard to say anything definitive on this because it's a moving target, but last time I tried models still had a distinct sense of "consistently good, sometimes great at micro, bad at macro". Similar to how, even for relatively pedestrian CRUD, they'll do code that's objectively fine at the function/file/class level but can still make a mess if you don't supervise them at least at a high-level.
Which model and harness did you try?
5.6 Sol on Codex, Opus 5 on Claude Code. (See sibling message, I'm not saying they're useless)