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! :)