Wow, that's really mean and narrow response. I get if you're mad about something right now that has nothing to do with this, but please don't bring that here. Rather constructively deal with the source of your feelings, instead of trying to take it out on people and places that don't deserve it! Haha :)

In your quest for invective did you consider other possibilities? Perhaps:

- you could learn by using these things, with an easy interface

- perhaps you're not the expert who knows everything, and other people have use cases beyond what you'd consider?

- you don't have to wait until things go wrong to familiarize yourself with these things, you can use the script now to ensure they're installed

Personally I think that if you don't think ChatGPT is useful for very many things, you're not using it right! Haha :) In general it seems your comment would benefit from the HN guidelines advice of assuming a generous interpretation, rather than going in other direction! Haha! :)

If you want to find "uselessness" or "stupidity" in what you are looking at, well, surely you can always find it if you try. But, truth is, you find there what you bring to it. So, try harder to find something good! Haha :)

But also that comment itself could be an example of "not understanding what's going on" yet speaking like there there is that understanding. I understand if the job situation is difficult and you're unhappy with the number of people in the field now, but if you dislike appreciating a diversity of approaches beyond your own, perhaps it is you who ought "go find a job in a different field."

Or, learn to be more welcoming and less arrogant in your quest to be "right". You could just apply yourself to finding something useful in whatever you're responding to. That, it seems, would be the way to really be right, and also to make a useful contribution, not just to the forum, but with that attitude, to the field. :)

I won't comment on the tone (I can't evaluate for you if they were harsh and how you should take it - I myself didn't find them too rude, more like irritated maybe) but they are right, in essence. I was going to answer something like this too.

You want to be 100% sure on what you run on your prod, so you really don't want to automate writing such a script with a tool that can hallucinate things.

I only skimmed the script because I don't really want to be reading hallucinated code, that's not very interesting, but I already saw two flaws:

- it tries to detect the package manager, among two random ones that exist. Why those two?

- there's a list of packages that surely applies to only one on them and will break with the other, if it doesn't already break with the first (who knows before trying or before careful review?).

It proposes helpers to run random stuff, but you really want to spend the time learning these tools directly because you will end up having to use them in different ways for different situations. You don't want to spend time learning how to use the generated script, that's extra, pointless, work. You also want to be damn sure the generated helpers are harmless and do the right things so you will have to take a lot of time reviewing them. Of course you could be learning stuff will reviewing these parts, but you really want to learn those things from actually experienced people instead so you get to be pointed at relevant stuff.

And then indeed there will be maintenance work.

> Personally I think that if you don't think ChatGPT is useful for very many things, you're not using it right! Haha :)

Be careful with ChatGPT. Because you've actually just showed us that you are using it in ways that could be detrimental to you or your coworkers. You took a very high quality article and fed it to ChatGPT to generate a script that you thought useful to share to the world on HN.

You actually need to know exactly and be familiar with what you are installing on your servers, and you need to know how to use this stuff because otherwise, in time of crisis, you won't know what to do. You need to take the time to learn this stuff. ChatGPT won't help you learn faster here, and this script is a shortcut you can't actually take. It does the opposite of helping you here. It's a bit like your non expert friend doing your homework. They have no responsibility, and you haven't learned what the teacher wanted you to learn yourself, and you are not sure the friend even did good work.

> if you dislike appreciating a diversity of approaches beyond your own, perhaps it is you who ought "go find a job in a different field."

If the other commenter is anything like me, we are seeing people posting ChatGPT-generated stuff all too frequently and we find this boring. We know ChatGPT exists. We are out there for learning things and read actual insight from the posts and the commenter. LLM Generated things don't come with any insight and actual knowledge.

On a personal note, I highly distrust LLM output. Way more than random HN comments. I will need to review carefully what I read on HN from actual people, but even more what the LLM says, with my vague knowledge on how it works.

I bet most of us here on HN don't want to see comments citing LLM-generated stuff. And bad luck, the quality difference between this and an article from Brendan Gregg is stupidly huge so we are definitely expecting more when we are just done reading one.

About your suggestion to make the script work on different distros: you wouldn't actually want this. You would want a script that is finely adapted to your own, very specific production. You can't actually have general purpose script for this. If you have several distros in your production, you will actually need different scripts because it's likely the servers on different distros will have very different goals and ways of working.

Of course the install procedure will be specific to how you deploy and your script will likely won't help because it probably doesn't match how your thing is deployed.

Guys, it's not meant to be the keystone for your production servers. I get your points about infra and LLMs but this is not the place for them. Surely there's some more deserving targets to your 'anti-AI-acrimony'?? Hahah! :)

More poignantly however the comments here decrying the use of AI tooling as suspicious, incorrect hallucinations, instead suggest that this ire is more about how these people fear that AI, LLMs and ChatGPT are obviating the need for people with their particular expertise, and are desperate to present otherwise. And so they criticize it profusely, even if irrational. A truly future-proof take would be to embrace the trend, and see how it enhances, rather than erodes their prospects.

But back to the point at hand -- it says very clearly at the top of the comment it's a first draft. In fact, I spent a little bit of time honing with a prompt. It says it's untested and suggests ways to improve. Hahaha! :)

A good sysadmin would focus on suggesting ways it could be improved and recognize it for its convenience, a goal they share. They'd likely clearly see that it's not claiming to be either: a substitute for using the tools in another way; nor for learning what they are; but rather can very much be an aid in learning and using the tools.

To instead allow personal, and perhaps mistaken biases against LLMs occlude your productivity or utilization of things seems unwise. There's nothing wrong with having your personal opinions, but failing to see the other ways that things could be useful outside of that, is a mistake, I imagine.

More bigger picture, now: what you do imagine the purpose of this script was?

You can always look for ineptitude and wrong. To some extent that attitude might even underlie an admirable caution, and could be indicative of expertise -- even if clumsily expressed. But at the same time such attitudes could underpin a not-so-admirable mistaken assumption of stupidity on the part of others, blindness to approaches outside of one's own experience, or an failure to communicate respectfully. It might be hard to argue these were wise traits.

I get your disdain for what you see as the high amount of low quality LLM output that is putting everything at risk, but while a valid opinion, this particular thread is not the best target of that. You can try to make it about that, but why? Then you're just abusing someone else's words as a wrong vehicle for venting your own gripes, right? If you want to vent, do a "Tell HN:" or a blog post. Not reply to someone else's completely-unrelated-to-your-angst comment.

In other words, it's possible to express that opinion without taking aim at something to which that does not apply. There's no need to misuse someone's else's comment as a way soapbox for your own gripes.

I get if that seemed wise, but it wasn't.

Also, it's possible to raise the question of balance. The criticisms of the script comment erode their own credibility by failing to note anything good in what they're replying to. Instead waxing verbosely why they are "right" and "correct.", suggesting instead that's the primary aim sought by such comments.

Yet, there's no absolutes in this, unless you mistakenly make your definition overly narrow -- then it's meaningless. If you're being real, there's a multitude of ways to do things "right", and a multitude of approaches, as well as uses for, and improvements of, the script I propose in my comment, and approaches like it.

A wise interpretation would clearly see such a script aims to be a collection of useful tools in the same way that many unix tools are collections of useful related functions.

If you'd like to use my comment as a generalized jumping off point for your own gripes on LLMs or need to criticize, it would be better instead to find a more appropriate target so as not to come across as being an abusive and overly-critical bully, which I'm sure you're actually not, in fact.

Your comment comes across as if you misread mine as someone suggesting you provision your entire infrastructure hinging on the correctness of this HN comment, and uses that unhinged assumption as a basis for then criticizing it as something it never intended, nor claimed, to be. Hahaha! :)

Again, I think the semi-hysterical hyperbole of the responses speaks to the 'fear of replacement' that must be gripping the ranks of these. There must be a perception of employers that this is true, and these people fear. That sucks, but it's better to be more rational in response, than less. So your stated skepticism and criticisms would arrive more warranted if they were more precise and balanced.

Better yet, as to commenting ... rather than imposing your view that this is "harmful", find ways that it's not, or ways to make it better. Or just, you know, appreciate that there's multiple ways to the same goal, and everyone can get there differently, and doesn't make you "right" and them "wrong".

To fail to see how my comment and script could be good or useful and instead impose one's own insecurities or generalized sentiments toward current ChatGPT, could also be considered boring...

So...I suspect the pearl clutching is unwarranted, and it's a false equivalence to equate use of ChatGPT with your presumption of technical ineptitude. True technical ineptitude could also include refusal to embrace new technologies, or an overly limited perspective on what people say. Or even an overly narrow view of your own prospects for the future given the introduction of these disruptive technologies! Hahaha! :)

We simply shared what we thought of your comment and I personally tried to do it the more polite way possible. Of course we are essentially telling you that we find your comment useless and why we think that, I'm inclined to understand you don't enjoy it. Now, we are also not imposing anything, what makes you think that?

Sure, you warned this is a draft that needs work, we noticed, but why share this? Do you have ideas on directions where it could be taken to? You are asking what we thought your script was useful for, but that is indeed the question. As is, your comment feels low effort. I don't want to make you justify to us why you think your comment was useful, people are free to comment on HN without justifications, but that's clearly what we are missing. You are writing a lot of words focusing on us detractors as people, but what about the actual content and arguments?

> So your stated skepticism and criticisms would arrive more warranted if they were more precise and balanced

Sorry, but I aim at being precise and deep in my thinking, I'm not aiming at balanced. I sometimes have opinions that are clear and strong, happy to change my mind given good arguments, but I don't seek balanced. I don't know why I should. I seek documented, educated, not watered down.

Now, about using AI myself, I don't quite feel the need but in any case, I will consider using LLMs more seriously when they are open source and when they are careful about how they source their data: the quality of the input, and whether people agree to have their work being used as training data. I also have issues with the amount of energy they require to run. ChatGPT is too ethically wrong from my point of view for considering using it. But that's beside the point and my opinion on this didn't play a role in my comments.

And I don't feel insecure. I'm all right really.

You are blaming us but your comment was flagged to death. We are not the one who were flagged (and I didn't flag you, to be clear). We are also your (only) clues on why this happened. I would suggest some humility. Really, take a hint.

And to be clear, I don't have disdain for you, and I don't assume stupidity. That's not how I work. I would look down at myself if I did. I'm sorry if I made you think this, but let me assure you this is not the case.

This last comment of mine is harsh, but you need to take in account that I just read yours which is not really nice to us. Let's now tone down a bit maybe.

Sorry for the belated reply, I did not read your comment until just 5 minutes ago. I avoided it, knowing it would be toxic and I had more important things to do. But now I have some free time, so let's deal with you, sir.

"We"? You only speak for you, right? You cannot assume consensus in unknown random internet others, or else you also must presume consensus with my ideas, too?

The idea of "useless" is of course an imposition. And abusive. I clearly find it useful, so to claim useless is to devalue my perspective. Do you not see that? Or you think it justified? Neither is acceptable if you aim, as you say, for 'politeness'. Nor even for good sense.

So, I think you don't aim to be polite in fact, but merely pretend to be so. Hahaha! :)

What about the content as arguments? There is none from you because you do not acknowledge the other perspectives. So it all comes down, necessarily, to you as people.

But you can't be deep without being balanced, because then you can only be narrow minded. Which you are succeeding at, but you think that's a victory. When it's not: balance is required for real depth, because in appreciation the the breadth, you depth is able to resonate, through linking with what else is real. Otherwise it is, necessarily, unhinged. As your seems to be, sorry to say! Hahahaha :)

Your pretense at ethics around use of AI tools is belied by your "low ethics" attitude toward commentary. How are we to find that convincing, if you are not a moral actor in the first?

Flagged only requires a few people. If you require the consolation of the chorus of voices to lift your own, I understand. But that undercuts your message of depth, does it not, sir? :)

> I'm sorry if I made you think this, but let me assure you this is not the case.

You know you can only be sorry for your own choices/actions, right? Not for whatever you assume someone else feels, yes? You cannot "make" me feel a certain way. My feelings are my responsibility, not yours. So, a better way that respects the boundaries of individuals (I understand if you have trouble with that, but take heed, and learn!) is to say, "I'm sorry for <insert your action>" if you do feel you have something to be sorry for.

Overall your comment comes across just about exactly as I thought it would, given your previous ones. For humility, well, perhaps you have a thing or two to learn, indeed. But even that may be too much to ask of you. I suggest, instead, first you take a course in empathy, and then in self-awareness. Then perhaps you'll be equipped to appreciate your humility.

Good luck, sir. And have a pleasant week! Hahaha! :)

Your comment brought me the entertainment I needed at this minute. I am grateful. So here's my gift to you, youngin: But, I think you're just playing at this role of provocateur--you can do much better--but you haven't figured it out yet (and you know it), and that's your weakness.

So, work out what you really want to do, and then talk to others of 'standards'. Hahahahahahaha! :)

The point about installing tools on demand is correct, however, I have trouble following the other ones. Simplifying or summarizing both the usage and the output of common tools clearly does have value, and people do that all the time to great effect. Maybe the specific choices made here are not to your liking, but attacking the concept of doing that is a weird thing to do. Also, why does it matter how a script was generated if it does the job? Especially given the fact that scripts like these often serve as a starting point for further customization, is there really a meaningful difference between asking ChatGPT and copying off some random person on the internet? You need to double-check for functionality and safety either way.

I'm sure someone could find a way to start from ChatGPT generated stuff and do good work knowing full well the risks and the consequences.

But posting something you just generated on HN without any refinement is not very helpful and it is obvious at a first glance that the script as posted will not help you at the task it tries to tackle and I'm not even a proper sysadmin.

> why does it matter how a script was generated if it does the job?

It doesn't here, and that's the point: it's all too easy to believe that ChatGPT does the job. It probably sometimes does, but here it is obvious it didn't. It should have told the user that they should carefully pick the tools they will likely need depending on what their production runs, learn to use them focusing on the features that matter to the situation, and install them the way their production is setup, and that ChatGPT can't really generate a script for this because it would need to know how production is deployed, and what if the prod is setup using immutable images for instance, as the article cites?

ChatGPT will answer in a convincing way, before you notice that no proper answer can really be found given the lack of context. And when you have the answer before your nose, it's even more difficult to notice.

In fact, it's useful. If you don't find it so, I suggest you simply don't know how to use it. That in itself is expertise of a tool which you lack. Could it be not more humble to consider that you could be educated by this tool that's read millions? I am educated by it. Are you above that? You seem to think so. Hahahahaha! :)

And yet, so useful it is, despite flagging. You can have it all in one place, and have Chat GPT write it for you, so you don't have to type it all out. And you've saved yourself time. Is time not important to you?

Hahahahaha! :)