[greedo]

AI won't be as impactful in generating good results (though it may result in middle management firing devs/admins since they think they're easily replaceable).

As an example, I asked claude.ai to generate an ansible playbook for patching a Docker cluster. It created one, something I'd expect a junior admin to be able to whip up pretty easily. Then I noticed something funky. The playbook was OS agnostic, just using some where clauses to handle debian, RHEL, etc. Nice stuff, but wrong. One of the tasks was to clean the cache after apply updates. The AI got apt correct (autoclean), but assumed incorrectly that yum had the same parameter. Just a small detail that would have shown up when the playbook was run, but when it can't handle the small details, why bother?

[NortySpock]

Because it wrote 90% of the code and you had two quick things to inspect and fix?

Sounds like a healthy tradeoff to me.

[greedo]

It wrote a template that passed a playbook linter. Whether any of the tasks were actually correct is highly questionable. I caught the errors because I have lots of experience. Maybe we need an AI to double check the work of the first AI?

/s