After 24 months of focused evaluation and careful experimentation, we’re excited to announce a major shift in the evolution of rsyslog: we’re going AI First. For those who love more details, please the the more in-depth description of AI First. This marks the beginning of a strategic transformation in how we design, develop, and support […]
I think that approach sounds pretty reasonable. To bad they went with this marketing bullshit headline.
Using AI to improve documentation (which is neglected often time anyway) or as a specifically trained LLM for support is exactly how you should use it.
The rest sounds rational too, so I wouldn’t write rsyslog down just because of that.
If it was something like “our policy is to use AI where it’s useful, so we’ve used it to reformat all the documentation” that wouldn’t worry me. Going “AI first” for “faster innovation” to “unlock the next stage of rsyslog’s evolution” is just not what I’m looking for in a logging daemon.
At least for my home network I’m going to just go with plain old GNU syslogd.
I know lemmy has a big antipathy towards AI but reading the details I’m not as concerned as I was when I read the posted article.
https://www.rsyslog.com/clarifying-ai-first-what-it-really-means-for-rsyslog/
I think that approach sounds pretty reasonable. To bad they went with this marketing bullshit headline.
Using AI to improve documentation (which is neglected often time anyway) or as a specifically trained LLM for support is exactly how you should use it.
The rest sounds rational too, so I wouldn’t write rsyslog down just because of that.
If it was something like “our policy is to use AI where it’s useful, so we’ve used it to reformat all the documentation” that wouldn’t worry me. Going “AI first” for “faster innovation” to “unlock the next stage of rsyslog’s evolution” is just not what I’m looking for in a logging daemon.
At least for my home network I’m going to just go with plain old GNU syslogd.