Infra.new is a DevOps platform designed to simplify infrastructure management. It offers a conversational interface (a "copilot") that allows users to describe their desired infrastructure in plain English, which the platform then translates into Terraform code. Crucially, Infra.new incorporates built-in guardrails and best practices to prevent common infrastructure misconfigurations and ensure security. This aims to make infrastructure provisioning and management more accessible and less error-prone, even for users with limited DevOps experience. The platform is currently in beta and focused on AWS.
Microsoft has introduced Dragon Ambient eXperience (DAX) Copilot, an AI-powered assistant designed to reduce administrative burdens on healthcare professionals. It automates note-taking during patient visits, generating clinical documentation that can be reviewed and edited by the physician. DAX Copilot leverages ambient AI and large language models to create summaries, suggest diagnoses and treatments based on doctor-patient conversations, and integrate information with electronic health records. This aims to free up doctors to focus more on patient care, potentially improving both physician and patient experience.
HN commenters express skepticism and concern about Microsoft's Dragon Copilot for healthcare. Several doubt its practical utility, citing the complexity and nuance of medical interactions as difficult for AI to handle effectively. Privacy is a major concern, with commenters questioning data security and the potential for misuse. Some highlight the existing challenges of EHR integration and suggest Copilot may exacerbate these issues rather than solve them. A few express cautious optimism, hoping it could handle administrative tasks and free up doctors' time, but overall the sentiment leans toward pragmatic doubt about the touted benefits. There's also discussion of the hype cycle surrounding AI and whether this is another example of overpromising.
The author argues that the increasing sophistication of AI tools like GitHub Copilot, while seemingly beneficial for productivity, ultimately trains these tools to replace the very developers using them. By constantly providing code snippets and solutions, developers inadvertently feed a massive dataset that will eventually allow AI to perform their jobs autonomously. This "digital sharecropping" dynamic creates a future where programmers become obsolete, training their own replacements one keystroke at a time. The post urges developers to consider the long-term implications of relying on these tools and to be mindful of the data they contribute.
Hacker News users discuss the implications of using GitHub Copilot and similar AI coding tools. Several express concern that constant use of these tools could lead to a decline in programmers' fundamental skills and problem-solving abilities, potentially making them overly reliant on the AI. Some argue that Copilot excels at generating boilerplate code but struggles with complex logic or architecture, and that relying on it for everything might hinder developers' growth in these areas. Others suggest Copilot is more of a powerful assistant, augmenting programmers' capabilities rather than replacing them entirely. The idea of "training your replacement" is debated, with some seeing it as inevitable while others believe human ingenuity and complex problem-solving will remain crucial. A few comments also touch upon the legal and ethical implications of using AI-generated code, including copyright issues and potential bias embedded within the training data.
Summary of Comments ( 16 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43763026
HN users generally expressed interest in Infra.new, praising its focus on safety and guardrails, especially for preventing accidental cloud cost overruns. Several commenters compared it favorably to existing infrastructure-as-code tools like Terraform, highlighting its potential for simplifying deployments and reducing complexity. Some questioned the depth of its current feature set and integrations, while others sought clarification on the pricing model. A few users with cloud management experience offered specific suggestions for improvement, including better handling of state management and drift detection. Overall, the reception seemed positive, with many expressing a desire to try the product.
The Hacker News post for "Launch HN: Infra.new (YC W23) – DevOps copilot with guardrails built in" has a moderate number of comments, sparking a discussion around the tool's functionality, target audience, and potential impact.
Several commenters express interest in the concept of "guardrails" for infrastructure automation, highlighting the potential for reducing errors and improving security. One commenter specifically asks about the implementation of these guardrails and how they differ from existing policy-as-code solutions like Open Policy Agent (OPA). This leads to a brief discussion about the complexities of integrating such guardrails seamlessly into existing workflows and the importance of clear visibility and control.
Another thread of discussion revolves around the target audience for Infra.new. Some commenters question whether the tool is primarily aimed at simplifying infrastructure management for developers who lack deep DevOps expertise, while others see it as a potential productivity booster even for experienced DevOps engineers. This leads to speculation about the pricing model and whether it will be accessible to smaller teams or individual developers.
One commenter raises the concern of vendor lock-in, questioning the portability of configurations and the potential difficulties of migrating away from the platform in the future. This prompts a discussion about the importance of open standards and interoperability in the DevOps ecosystem.
A few commenters share their personal experiences with similar tools and offer suggestions for improvement, such as better integration with existing infrastructure-as-code tools like Terraform and enhanced support for different cloud providers.
Finally, there's some skepticism expressed about the marketing language used in the launch announcement, with some commenters finding the term "DevOps copilot" to be overly hyped and potentially misleading. They argue that true "copilot" functionality would require a much deeper understanding of the user's intent and context.
Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of curiosity, cautious optimism, and healthy skepticism about the potential of Infra.new. While many see the value in simplifying infrastructure management and enhancing security, there are also concerns about practical implementation, pricing, and potential vendor lock-in.