From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DAF215807A for ; Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:15:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gentoo.org (bobolink.gentoo.org [140.211.166.189]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: relay-lists.gentoo.org@gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3ADD3343137 for ; Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:15:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bobolink.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bobolink.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75451104B3; Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:14:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.io (ciao.gmane.io [116.202.254.214]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by bobolink.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9093F1102BE for ; Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:14:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1uNXpp-0002qV-Ml for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2025 16:14:17 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Nuno Silva Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Books about making shell scripts and other nifty commands. Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2025 15:14:11 +0100 Message-ID: <101ut3j$af1$1@ciao.gmane.io> References: <1a0acd33-22d2-d378-6d8d-87a5302242f8@gmail.com> <1b1e56cf-ffbc-40af-a4a5-fa3e157d3326@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) X-Archives-Salt: e9920494-90a2-4e62-a468-00373ac98d67 X-Archives-Hash: b52ed822f4b64206bfe5f23c0bf13993 On 2025-06-05, Eli Schwartz wrote: > On 6/5/25 12:16 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: >> >> >> I sense a certain overriding fear about the future... >> >> > > > I'm not worried about the future, I'm worried about today, and today's > users seeking help and getting led astray. > > >> To each his own. I agree with you in general - don't trust AI with >> anything important. If you prefer then 'trust but verify'. > > > I don't consider AI to provide value enhancement for me at all, for much > the same reason as described at > > https://infosec.exchange/@david_chisnall/113690087142854474 > > It saves time on writing code. It costs *more* time in debugging subtle > edge cases. This is a steep disadvantage for a technology that is full > of questions about legal liability! > > Of course, your mileage may vary... if it's only for personal use you > may not care about legal liability, and if you couldn't write it > yourself at all then maybe the debugging is worth it. Edge cases, corner cases, implementation details and non-portable features are reasons why you'd want to *avoid* "GenAI" for shell scripting. I'd say a bit of shell scripting is being aware of what the conditions to be careful with are. That sounds precisely like the kind of thing at least some public GenAIs might fail at. Possibly even if you stick to GNU bash and Linux (which shouldn't be a problem unless you plan on your scripts being used on other systems). I can't forget the moment when I got a GenAI telling me how to use killall to kill processes *by name* in Solaris [1]. That said, maybe that public model was defective, given it claimed the white side of a Space Shuttle Orbiter goes *down* on top of a carrier aircraft... [1] https://social.sdf.org/@njsg/113130981279894435 -- Nuno Silva