The article is great reflection how LLMs are actually doing Quality assurance on both security and codebase sides, but i still doubt the creative part that means UI side, So far in my experience LLMs at best are unable to determine what the good UI is , may be its not inherently a bug detection rather a creative process
Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
181–190 of 668 posts
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#182A lot of people here seem to be living in a different universe than me or simply don't know how to work with AI. I think detractors believe you should just let AI do the job blindly instead of leveraging it as a tool to accelerate you. They get mad at Excel for the poor investment returns. At this point, this is such a strawman, it isn't worth counter arguing. I think I'll abandon this discussion and keep using AI qu…
> A lot of people here seem to be living in a different universe than me I feel this way on this topic too. > I think detractors believe you should just let AI do the job blindly instead of leveraging it as a tool to accelerate you. The problem is; how _should_ I use AI? On a previous thread, I had two replies to the same comment, one saying "provide the LLM all the context it needs and let it go ham", and the other…
The truth is that using AI well is a skill much like anything else. There's no one single way to use it much like there's no one single way to write a program that serves hackernews.
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#183This is only a flex if AI also didn’t cause an increase in bugs that needed to be fixed.
So, your conjecture is that the LLM's skill to detect bugs somehow magically disappears the moment they start writing new code?
Actually yeah, that would align with my experience with it.
You're absolutely right! Let me fix that.
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#184I'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.
[flagged]
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#185Earlier today I opened Chrome on my iPhone, went to the Reading List. It started flicking fast and then the phone restarted. That's a first for me on iPhone.
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#186Worrying. Extrapolating a (speculative) future, this means (Google will feel) that soon the chromium base will no longer need the crowd-sourced bug hunting that is open-source. I expect Google to eventually stop working on chromium (in the open) and all current chromium-flavours will become de-facto forks of the last published version of chromium. These forks won't be equally easy to maintain given that the groups ru…
Google already controls Chrome/Chromium direction so much that you should use Firefox if you value an open web.
Which I do (actually a fork of firefox - waterfox), but it is still worrying as the viability of chromium-base browsers is what's keeping us having "merely" a chromium-monoculture (with viable ad blockers e.g. and website operators that check compatibility with more than one browser), rather than a chrome-monoculture (where ad-blockers surely would have been killed by now).
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#187Earlier 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.
That's what I add at the end of my prompts: "Ask me questions on anything that's not clear related to this task" or similar. Both the CLI and the VSCode plugin have a nice interface designed for this, asking the user questions.
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#188I'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…
AI can uncover certain issues and resolve certain problems but it also has its blind spots. I've been using Claude to create a software architecture diagram. It came up with a lot of useful functionality that we had neglected to show but upon further examination a lot of steps didn't make any sense. It added a box to do validation on some data then it put another box downstream to do validation again on the exact sam…
[deleted]
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the main cause of different views is just the fact that people have very different products and codebases they're working on. Therefore, the requirements and applicability of AI varies a lot, case-by-case. It would be useful if people always explained their exact use cases when making claims one way or another. I understand it's not feasible for many use cases to reveal exact details, but at least some transp…
> It would be useful if people always explained their exact use cases when making claims one way or another. I understand it's not feasible for many use cases to reveal exact details, It would be useful if people _ever_ explained the use cases. Even Anthropic when they're publishing their materials are hand wavey about this. > Gamedev is a good example of where AI shines, since the risks of fucking things up are not…
> It would be useful if people _ever_ explained the use cases. Even Anthropic when they're publishing their materials are hand wavey about this.
Yes, good addition.
> I couldn't disagree more. I run an engineering team in GameDev, and AI is great at making a gigantic mess. It's great for generating a lot of code, but the minute that doesn't do what you want it to, you now need to go back and learn _everything_ that it's generated. And IME, doing that is as bad as having just written it yourself in the first place.
Yeah, I should have been more specific since our use cases are very different. I'm working solo on small games, so it's easier to keep the AI on a leash. I can imagine it can be a nightmare on large code bases with many collaborators.
> I tentatively agree here, except I've found about 50% of it is "fine", 40% of it is "this works but isn't really what I want to put into my product" and 10% is "absolutely not".
Yeah, probably our use cases are very different here too. We mostly develop/maintain dozens of microservices for internal use, mostly greenfield, relatively small in scope, and with 1-3 developers in each. And maybe 98% was a bit too optimistic. The larger and older the codebase, the more problems AI tends to create. But it's very good at helping to understand old codebases (even those written by myself haha).
Oh, and esoteric data science topics can be a minefield too. If there's a topic that's new to me, It's difficult to know what is hallucination and what is not. It's best to let AI suggest alternative methods and then study those yourself.
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What tooling makes this go?
In this case, you need benchmarks, in addition to regular tests. You also need concise instructions (or better yet, following your language / ecosystem norms if applicable) to how to run this stuff