• public_image_ltd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    Might be a stupid question but wouldn’t it be a good job for fucking AI to read these and tell you where the interesting parts are?

    • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Tbh Ive had some joy using K8Gpt and I’m kind of excited to try Liz for my Rancher stuff.

      To me though, RAG AI is good as a semantic search at the moment but you really should check with your own eyes and not assume the convincing string machine has any actual understanding about what it is saying.

      Does help though when your eyes are bleeding and your troubleshooting something youre just not sure where to look.

    • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Logs’ purpose is to tell you what actually happened in the system. I don’t think it is a good idea to use something that “hallucinates” to tell you what really happened.

    • kippinitreal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      LLM would be great to parse all that data, but I think you miss OP’s point. AI can be useful to automate mundane jobs, i.e. jobs you can’t get away from. OP’s point in my view is verbose logs are noisey & difficult to parse, because you’re logging everything unnecessarily. If you Log interesting things and mark them with context & logging levels, Then you can dive in as deep as you need, when you need. Why add complexity (& other hazards) of AI when you can fix the root of the problem first yourself.