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.
Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
321–330 of 667 posts
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#322I'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.…
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#323Fast foot didn't kill fine dining, but it is killing us..
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#324I'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.…
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#325I'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…
You have to learn to use your tools, not try whatever intuitively made sense to you at first (expecting the tool to do all the work) and then whining on Hacker News when it doesn’t work out for you.
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
I have at least one coworker who literally copy-paste AI output to respond to code and doc reviews (and most of her communications like on Teams and Asana) despite me telling her multiple times to take it a notch down. Two days ago, she started answering my doc review questions with literally AI outputs (like "Good question. " and "You're right. "). That really bothered me that I finally announced AI "code of conduct…
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#327I'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…
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#328A 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…
Where do you suppose those misconceptions on how to use the tool comes from? That's rhetorical because the answer is obvious: the people selling the tools and their army of bots and sycophants. You can't be mad at people for being like "hey I tried to use this tool in the way it has been sold to me and its not delivering on its promises"
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I don't generally use AI to write code I feel I can write efficiently. In these cases, I'll just ask AI for a review. But when I need to write code in areas I'm less confident about, I'll let AI take the reins and the do a thorough review myself. These instances are not too common, though. I also ask direct questions to AI for brainstorming and advanced programming language usage. In these cases, AI isn't touching th…
I see this mindset a bunch, and I just don’t get it. Reviewing code is so much harder than writing code! To write code, I need to find one path to achieve my goal, and convince myself, the compiler, and the reviewer that it does so. To review code, I need to consider all reasonable paths to achieve the goal, and confirm that a sufficiently-good one was selected. This is why we have junior engineers write code and seniors review it. If you’re beyond your comfort level writing it, how can you possibly review whether the author (AI or otherwise) made good choices? You only have exposure to one possible choice lane, and by problem statement you weren’t comfortable populating the other lanes…
Re: Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than over the past two years, thanks to AI
#330Earlier 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.
I will launch it by the end of August. After ~4 months of hard work.