Wrong on both accounts. As with any other source of information, its correctness needs to be validated. And said verification is usually quicker to do than research from scratch, especially with the absolute state of internet search these days.
I can paste a huge log file and have it summarize where it went wrong
except you aren’t using it for validation since you didn’t bother to actually read the huge log file… you’re using for answers, not to confirm something you already know.
Wrong again. You seem to be the one making the assumptions here, as you keep ascribing methods to me.
But since you absolutely have to know, when the log file is megabytes in size, I don’t read it line by line, as I have better things to do with my time. But an LLM can help narrow down which line to look at more closely and parse away the noise.
sure…sure it can, and it’ll do it incorrectly too.l but you wouldn’t know because you didn’t. other to read. you do you, idgaf. ai is dogshit and will just make you stupider at the end of the day so have it.
Again with the assumptions. I do verify the results, as previously stated, and it’s on point most of the time.
Anyway, LLMs are tools like any other invented since sharp rocks, and you seem to be conflating useful applications of said tools for slopgen. Sometimes a fancy autocomplete might actually be what is best for one particular task, even if you’re opposed to its use. And yes, you obviously do gaf, as you keep trying to argue how I should or shouldn’t do things.
They almost always point out what they think the issue is in the log. It doesn’t take much effort to take a snippet of the error, ctrl F, and see that it’s been blowing up 500 times. It’s not hard to verify from there if that was the issue. But if it gives you a fix and that fix worked then presumably it was right.
you assume it’s actually correct
you assume it’s vorrect
Wrong on both accounts. As with any other source of information, its correctness needs to be validated. And said verification is usually quicker to do than research from scratch, especially with the absolute state of internet search these days.
If you’re verifying the output from a big log file anyway, then you wouldn’t need the llm in the first place.
If you need the llm, then you’re not verifying it yourself.
That’s not how reading works.
except you aren’t using it for validation since you didn’t bother to actually read the huge log file… you’re using for answers, not to confirm something you already know.
huge difference…
Wrong again. You seem to be the one making the assumptions here, as you keep ascribing methods to me.
But since you absolutely have to know, when the log file is megabytes in size, I don’t read it line by line, as I have better things to do with my time. But an LLM can help narrow down which line to look at more closely and parse away the noise.
sure…sure it can, and it’ll do it incorrectly too.l but you wouldn’t know because you didn’t. other to read. you do you, idgaf. ai is dogshit and will just make you stupider at the end of the day so have it.
Again with the assumptions. I do verify the results, as previously stated, and it’s on point most of the time.
Anyway, LLMs are tools like any other invented since sharp rocks, and you seem to be conflating useful applications of said tools for slopgen. Sometimes a fancy autocomplete might actually be what is best for one particular task, even if you’re opposed to its use. And yes, you obviously do gaf, as you keep trying to argue how I should or shouldn’t do things.
There’s no point arguing with someone that interprets “I read the logs” as “I don’t read the logs”.
They almost always point out what they think the issue is in the log. It doesn’t take much effort to take a snippet of the error, ctrl F, and see that it’s been blowing up 500 times. It’s not hard to verify from there if that was the issue. But if it gives you a fix and that fix worked then presumably it was right.