AI fixed more Chrome bugs in June than in 2 years — funny?

So apparently Google's AI just did in one month what two years of human engineers couldn't. According to the headline, Google fixed more Chrome bugs in June than in the past two years combined, and the credit goes to AI. Honestly, I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or file a bug report about the bug reports.

Let's think about what this actually means. Either the humans were that bad, or the AI is genuinely doing something different. The pessimistic take: the previous two years were spent in meetings about "efficiency" and "synergy" while the bug tracker grew like a neglected houseplant. The optimistic take: AI finally makes bug triage fun, like a robot vacuum that actually goes under the couch.

But here's the part that makes me suspicious. When they say "fixed," do they mean closed? Because there's a huge difference between "resolved as intended" and "we marked it Won't Fix because the AI said it's not a bug." I've seen AI close bugs with comments that are just the word "No." with a period. I've seen AI assign bugs to people who don't exist. I've seen AI create duplicate bugs of other duplicate bugs and then link them in a daisy chain of despair.

Now, don't get me wrong — I'm all for AI in the development workflow. I use AI-assisted debugging, and it's great for things like "why does my code randomly crash on Tuesdays" (answer: undefined behavior). But the claim that AI fixed more bugs in one month than in two years is either an indictment of the entire Chrome development process or a sign that the AI is just auto-resolving a bunch of reports with a confidence level that no human would dare to have.

Let me break down what probably happened:

• AI triaged the backlog: It went through thousands of issues and reclassified them. Many "bugs" were actually feature requests, duplicate reports, or people complaining about memory usage. (Chrome's memory usage is not a bug, it's a feature.)
• AI generated patches: For some reproducible bugs, the AI wrote a patch that passed tests. That's genuinely impressive, but then someone has to review it, and that someone is probably a human who spent the last two years doing nothing but reviewing AI-generated patches.
• AI auto-closed issues after a delay: "We haven't heard from you in two weeks, closing as stale." Classic move. The AI learned that from enterprise support teams.

And of course, the funniest part: Google has AI of all shapes and sizes — why didn't they use it before? Why did June get special treatment? Did someone finally change the default setting from "deprioritize human suffering" to "fix stuff"? Or is this just a PR move to make an AI product look good before a big launch?

As someone who has reported Chrome bugs and watched them sit in the queue long enough to become nostalgic, I have mixed feelings. I'm glad bugs are being