• neidu3@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 days ago

    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.

    • Bluegrass_Addict@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      17 days ago

      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.

      • neidu3@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        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.

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          16 days ago

          There’s no point arguing with someone that interprets “I read the logs” as “I don’t read the logs”.