[supriyo-biswas]

This is definitely some ChatGPT output being posted here and your post history also has a lot of this "While X, Y also does Z. Y already overlaps with X" output.

I'd like to see your breakdowns as well, given that the cost difference between a 2 vCPU, 4GB configuration (as an example) and a similar configuration on AWS is priced much higher.

There's also https://github.com/kube-hetzner/terraform-hcloud-kube-hetzne... to reduce the operational burden that you speak of.

[tutfbhuf]

It is my ouput, but I use ChatGPT to fix my spelling and grammar. Maybe my prompt for that should be refined in order to not alter the wording too much.

[redbell]

While using ChatGPT for enhancing your writings is not wrong by any means, reviewing the generated output and re-editing when necessary is essential to avoid robotic writing style that may smell unhuman. For instance, these successive paragraphs: "In contrast, using AWS.." and "In essence, with AWS.." leaves a bad taste in your brain when read consecutively.

[tutfbhuf]

I agree with you, failed on that one

[lproven]

> I use ChatGPT to fix my spelling and grammar

I have a better suggestion, which will save time, energy, money, and human work.

Don't.

Write it yourself. If you can't, don't post.

[simtel20]

Why would you want to restrict contributions from people with relevant experience and willingness to share, just because the author ran a spelling and grammar check?

[theshrike79]

Unless the spelling and grammar is HORRENDOUS people won't really care. Bad English is the words most used language, we all deal with it every day.

Just using your browser's built-in proofreader is enough in 99.9% of the cases.

Using ChatGPT to rewrite your ideas will make them feel formulaic (LLMs have a style and people exposed to them will spot it instantly, like a code smell) and usually needlessly verbose.

[DonHopkins]

You can tell it's AI when it refuses to take a side and equivocally considers issues first on one hand and then the other hand, but can't get the number of fingers right.

Or as ChatGPT would put it:

Precise grammar and spelling are undeniably important, but minor imperfections in English rarely obstruct communication. As the most widely used language in the world, English is highly flexible, and most people navigate small errors without issue. For the majority of cases, a browser’s built-in proofreader is entirely sufficient.

On one hand, tools like ChatGPT can be valuable for refining text and ensuring clarity. On the other hand, frequent reliance on such tools can result in writing that feels formulaic, especially to those familiar with AI-generated styles. Balancing the benefits of polished phrasing with the authenticity of your own voice is often the most effective approach.

[dotancohen]

I could actually hear the different voices in my head as I read the second and third paragraphs, distinct from the first. Your assessment of the unable-to-take-a-side is spot on for OpenAI, possibly Gemini too, but not for all LLMs.

[mbreese]

It’s overkill for this audience. HN is pretty forgiving of spelling and grammar mistakes, so long as the main information is clear. I’d encourage anyone that wants to share a comment here to not use an LLM to help, but just try your best to write it out yourself.

Really - your comment on its own is good enough without the LLM. (And if you find an error, you can always edit!)

If we really wanted ChatGPT’s input on a topic (or a rewording of your comment), we can always ask ChatGPT ourselves.

[supriyo-biswas]

Everyone claims it’s a spelling and grammar check, but it’s the OP trying to spread “we tried running self-managed clusters on Hetzner and it only saved us 20% while being a chore in terms of upkeep” into a full essay that causes all that annoying filler.

You’d assume people would use tools to deliver a better and well composed message; whereas most people try to use LLMs to decompress their text into an inefficient representation. Why this is I have no idea, but I’d rather have the raw unfiltered thought from a fellow human rather than someone trying to sound fancy and important.

Not to say I still find the 20% claim a little suspect.

[tuukkah]

You do realize it wasn't "saved us 20%" but "Hetzner can sometimes be as low as 20% of an equivalent AWS bill" ie saved 80%?

[stonogo]

Might have been easier to read if it weren't buried in AI slop.

[supriyo-biswas]

Ah, apologies.

[0xFF0123]

While I agree that your characterisation is true for a lot of chatgpt output, it can also be true for a human explaining their nuanced point of view.

[ratg13]

Most humans don't say a couple sentences and then re-summarize them 3 more times unless they are speaking to someone with a learning disability.