Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 668 posts

Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI

#141

Post by aurareturn »

2sk21 wrote: post #137
aurareturn wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're using it wrong. No really you are. Give Fabe 5 access to a test database with some data, or even restricted access to your live DB and tell it to optimize then. I've had stunning success optimizing for performance this way. In a single day, I made the core part of our app 2-3x faster.

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.

No one said Fable 5 is human.

That's like saying Fable 5 should have told me how to prompt it to solve the Riemann hypothesis like Terence Tao would. The skill of the user still matters.

Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI

#142

Post by spiderfarmer »

herrkanin wrote: post #34
VBprogrammer wrote: post #17

I'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 thing that makes it work really well is to make sure it has all the tooling to verify its hypotheses. If you allow it to run the full lifecycle in loops you will be surprised how well it works.

That’s how I do it in my Laravel apps. I simply ask it to hypothesize, benchmark, apply and verify. Laravel has great tools for that.

Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI

#143

Post by latexr »

whatevaa wrote: post #129
watwut wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI can not fail. It can only be failed. AI can not have limitations. Only the user can be limited.

Are you still speaking about a tool or starting a religion?

Seems to me they’re doing the third option: being sarcastic.

Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI

#144

Post by heaney-555 »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #17

I'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…

[flagged]

Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI

#145

Post by buzzin__ »

goldenarm wrote: post #51

Elephant in the room : how many of these bugs were written by LLMs in the first place ? Because creating 100x more bugs and fixing 100x more isn't something to be proud of.

If you assume that AI can produce code with less bugs, your 100 times increase in fresh bugs means you also increased your speed for new functionality by more than 100 times.

If models can spot 13 years old critical bugs, I think they can also produce fresh code without those bugs. The skillset is the same.

Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI

#146

Post by taspeotis »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #17

I'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…

[flagged]

Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI

#147

Post by Orphis »

nalekberov wrote: post #77

Real question is: how much those "fixed" bugs actually bothered the users to begin with? But since Google cares mostly about its investors, the numbers and a mention of Gemini in such a blog post are more important.

Old bugs at the bottom of the prioritization list deserve to be fixed.

Some were probably just theoretical "if we have over 2B of this item, it'll crash because X/Y/Z and that can be exploited", some are probably in rarely used features.

Once the LLMs are done going through the code, the baseline will be all better and they will probably fix a lot less than they have now. Or they will have LLMs automatically check every single crash bug that has been submitted and take care of those too. I am assuming that they are probably already using this as an input source for their AI.

Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI

#148

Post by frizlab »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #38
dabedee wrote: post #16

How many of those automated fixes were reverted? How many introduced a new bug? What's the false positive rate on the finding agents? The post has counts for everything that went right and nothing for what could go wrong.

> The post has counts for everything that went right and nothing for what could go wrong. That's AI for you. At Amazon we have many forums to share our AI wins, but none to share AI failures or disappoinments. No wonder execs make bad decisions regarding AI, they only hear completely one-sided stories.

In $COMPANY, for the mid-yearly review, the employees were asked whether their AI usage was 1/ efficient, 2/ adoptive (integrated in the way they work) or 3/ transformative.

Saying “never used it” or “I tried and it was useless” was literally not possible.

Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI

#149

Post by whywhywhywhy »

They keep breaking inertial scroll on Mac though, which is something that irritates me thousands of times a day.

First they made it so when it came to rest it would then start scrolling again and overshoot by 2 lines before coming to a halt.

They fixed that after a few weeks then it worked until last week and now it’s left in a state where as it’s coming to a halt it jerks every time like dropping frames of the scroll almost.

I know it’s not my machine, config or trackpad because I’m seeing it on multiple computers.

Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI

#150

Post by Orphis »

brainwad wrote: post #35
asdaqopqkq wrote: post #25

Did anyone check the code changes manually? What if it is just slop code?

I don't know about Chromium specifically, but in general Google requires 2 humans to have looked at every change (normally one is the author, but not necessarily for bot-authored changes).

They did roll this policy for Chromium changes a few years ago too.

And it wasn't just 2 humans but 2 Googlers. One Googler author and one Googler reviewer works. But an external author needed 2 Googlers to review changes, and all files needed to be reviewed by one author at least.

So if you touched multiple files owned by different people for a more complex feature, you would naturally get there.

Post reply on HN