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

▲

simianwords 9 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	IanCal 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.