Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the cost (in tokens/$$$) of spending an hour restating questions to a chat bot vs typing `man rsync`?
Lower than the cost of a meatbag-office with heating, cooling and coffee for the time spent reading the manual.
To AI or not to AI
81–90 of 90 posts
Re: To AI or not to AI
#82The proceeding without clarifying or asking questions thing really grinds my gears.
Re: To AI or not to AI
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why involve an LLM at all, if you're looking up docs for a particular tool like rsync?
Lots of reasons! First off: where else do I go to learn this stuff? Man pages are reference for people who work in CLI all the time and not for virgin learners as they are are necessarily packed with the complete lexicon but with barely a thought to explaining real world examples of common tasks. There are a million Linux websites with the same versioning issues and inadequate explanations. I guess I could buy an ore…
So, instead you ask a magic robot to recite a fuzzily 'remembered' version of those websites?
Bear in mind that an LLM does not _know_ anything, and that, despite some recent marketing, they are not 'reasoning'.
Re: To AI or not to AI
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why involve an LLM at all, if you're looking up docs for a particular tool like rsync?
Lots of reasons! First off: where else do I go to learn this stuff? Man pages are reference for people who work in CLI all the time and not for virgin learners as they are are necessarily packed with the complete lexicon but with barely a thought to explaining real world examples of common tasks. There are a million Linux websites with the same versioning issues and inadequate explanations. I guess I could buy an ore…
Re: To AI or not to AI
#85>There is never enough context. We learned quickly that the more context we provided and the smaller the issues, the better the results. However, no matter how much context we provided, the AI would still mess things up because it didn’t ask us for feedback. AI would just not understand if it didn’t have enough information to finish a task, it would assume, a lot, and fail. Is it me or does it feels like the genie in…
(Really the genie is closer to the traditional sci-fi AI in that it's legalistic and rules-bound; the LLM very much isn't.)
Re: To AI or not to AI
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of reasons! First off: where else do I go to learn this stuff? Man pages are reference for people who work in CLI all the time and not for virgin learners as they are are necessarily packed with the complete lexicon but with barely a thought to explaining real world examples of common tasks. There are a million Linux websites with the same versioning issues and inadequate explanations. I guess I could buy an ore…
> There are a million Linux websites with the same versioning issues and inadequate explanations. So, instead you ask a magic robot to recite a fuzzily 'remembered' version of those websites? Bear in mind that an LLM does not _know_ anything, and that, despite some recent marketing, they are not 'reasoning'.
Re: To AI or not to AI
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of reasons! First off: where else do I go to learn this stuff? Man pages are reference for people who work in CLI all the time and not for virgin learners as they are are necessarily packed with the complete lexicon but with barely a thought to explaining real world examples of common tasks. There are a million Linux websites with the same versioning issues and inadequate explanations. I guess I could buy an ore…
Learn to read documentation. It's really a very important skill, and many people were becoming _somewhat_ deficient in it even before our good friends the magic robots arrived, due to Stackoverflow et al.
Re: To AI or not to AI
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “fucking” manual is obtuse, overly verbose, and almost always lacking in super clear real world examples. That you claim it is a I am backing up and verifying critical data here. This is not a task that should be taken lightly. And as I learned, it is not a task that one can rely on an LLM for.
I disagree. The topic is rsync which is well documented. The path forward might not work in every situation but the manual has good examples too. This is probably true for what Llm users use it for 90% of the time. To hack together things that are well known and well documented into a result. Llms arguably only work because these tools ffmpeg, rsync, etc were already solving problems and widely used and documented. S…
Here is the man page entry for the --delete flag:
--delete is used. This option is mutually exclusive with --delete-during, --delete-delay, and --delete-after.
Hilarious!
Reading and understanding the rsync command would take much more than 10 mins and I am not a total newb here.
Re: To AI or not to AI
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. The topic is rsync which is well documented. The path forward might not work in every situation but the manual has good examples too. This is probably true for what Llm users use it for 90% of the time. To hack together things that are well known and well documented into a result. Llms arguably only work because these tools ffmpeg, rsync, etc were already solving problems and widely used and documented. S…
>rsync which is well documented Here is the man page entry for the --delete flag: --delete is used. This option is mutually exclusive with --delete-during, --delete-delay, and --delete-after. Hilarious! Reading and understanding the rsync command would take much more than 10 mins and I am not a total newb here.
A search query takes a matter of seconds to type in, select a result and read. No doubt still under 10 minutes.
But still to my original point it’s insanely more expensive to have chatgpt look it up. This doesn’t bother you because you are privileged enough to waste money there. If time is money then IMO the only valuable time I have with my money is when it’s gaining interest and not being spent.
You can abstract away all the “but I had to scroll down the page and click a different result” steps as “time savings” all you want, but no one was wasting a ton of time there for already well established tools. That is a deluded myth.
I’m not sure I even grasped your point. The delete flag is pretty self explanatory and gives you options for more granularity. Why does that take greater than 10 mins? What is the issue with that entry?
Here is what I get when I type `man rsync`:
``` --delete This tells rsync to delete extraneous files from the receiving side (ones that aren't on the sending side), but only for the directories that are being synchronized. You must have asked rsync to send the whole directory (e.g. "dir" or "dir/") without using a wildcard for the directory's contents (e.g. "dir/*") since the wildcard is expanded by the shell and rsync thus gets a request to transfer individual files, not the files' parent directory. Files that are excluded from the transfer are also excluded from being deleted unless you use the --delete-excluded option or mark the rules as only matching on the sending side (see the include/exclude modifiers in the FILTER RULES section).
Prior to rsync 2.6.7, this option would have no effect unless
--recursive was enabled. Beginning with 2.6.7, deletions will
also occur when --dirs (-d) is enabled, but only for directories
whose contents are being copied.
This option can be dangerous if used incorrectly! It is a very
good idea to first try a run using the --dry-run (-n) option to
see what files are going to be deleted.
If the sending side detects any I/O errors, then the deletion of
any files at the destination will be automatically disabled.
This is to prevent temporary filesystem failures (such as NFS
errors) on the sending side from causing a massive deletion of
files on the destination. You can override this with the
--ignore-errors option.
The --delete option may be combined with one of the --delete-
WHEN options without conflict, as well as --delete-excluded.
However, if none of the --delete-WHEN options are specified,
rsync will choose the --delete-during algorithm when talking to
rsync 3.0.0 or newer, or the --delete-before algorithm when
talking to an older rsync. See also --delete-delay and
--delete-after.
```Re: To AI or not to AI
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
>rsync which is well documented Here is the man page entry for the --delete flag: --delete is used. This option is mutually exclusive with --delete-during, --delete-delay, and --delete-after. Hilarious! Reading and understanding the rsync command would take much more than 10 mins and I am not a total newb here.
What command? Just to clarify there is no example command we’re discussing here. You’re just cherry picking results exclusively from the man page and then arguing that chatgpt is better because it gets to use example documentation from the internet. Well I get to use examples from the internet too. A search query takes a matter of seconds to type in, select a result and read. No doubt still under 10 minutes. But stil…
Later in the man page, it gives examples and totally fails to explain those examples. And yes, for someone who is going to be doing this frequently and professionally. They should understand this deeply and spending the hours required to be fluent in a command with a kitchen sink full of parameters. I, on the other hand, will be executing these commands maybe a few times in a year.
The more I think about it, the more I think the solution here is to use LLM‘s to write better documentation with lenses for different types of users with different needs.