incidents 2 Minutes
The other day, Reginald Braithwaite posted the following toot. For posterity, I’ve also included my own response to it:
Braithwaite’s post is dripping with sarcasm, but make no mistake, incident reports written entirely by LLMs is coming. And I am not looking forward to this future.
Before I dive in here, I want to note that there is a lot of toil you need to do in order to gather the data you need to write a good incident report, and LLMs can help significantly reduce that toil. I’ve got no issues there. But there’s a world of difference between using LLMs to help you assemble the ingredients involved in writing an incident report, and using an LLM to actually write the report itself.
Braithwaite’s post is horrifying to me precisely because of the seduction of the LLM as a tool for generating an incident report. After all, you can just ask it to write the report, and it’ll do it. And that’s exactly what scares me.
There’s a famous quote by the cartoonist Dick Guindon: “Writing is Nature’s way of showing you how sloppy your thinking is“. You might think you understand a concept, but it’s only when you put metaphorical pen to paper, when you actually try to explain the concept in written words to a potential reader, that you realize how fuzzy your understanding actually is. Writing in your own words forces you to confront how much you actually understand what it is that you’re writing about. Or, as Leslie Lamport put it, “If you’re thinking without writing, you only think you’re thinking.”
Having an LLM generate the text of an incident write-up bypasses this thinking step. Now there’s no human in the loop of the writing process that has to confront whether the explanation is actually consistent with the evidence that they’ve gathered. Instead, what you get is a plausible explanation of what happened to someone who is not intimately familiar with the details. They might read, nod along, and think, “yes, that makes sense.” But the LLM may have invented couplings between systems that aren’t there, and may miss critical interactions that were actually part of the incident, and because nobody did the hard work of actually synthesizing the data to do the write-up, nobody will notice. Because if you’re trying to reduce the writing effort, how much effort are you really going to put into checking the LLMs work.
In my view, LLM-generated incident write-ups are more dangerous than using LLM for coding or for AI SRE style tasks. For coding tasks, there’s always a testing step to check that the code exhibits the desired behavior, even if nobody looks at the code itself for meaningful details. For AI SRE tasks, either the LLM output helps you resolve the incident, or it doesn’t. In both cases, Nature is the ultimate arbiter of the LLM output.
But incident write-ups aren’t like that. The consequences of a poor report aren’t immediately apparent the way incorrect code or an incorrect operational diagnosis are in the moment. Instead, we get incident reports that have the superficially correct form, but are actually incorrect, with no obvious test for correctness.
And, because incident reports are time-consuming to write, the temptation to use AI tools to generate them will be overwhelming. But these LLMs will not go around talking to people that were involved in the incident. These reports will be simulacra; they will have the right form, but they will not provide readers with genuine insights into the nature of the system. The amount of learning will be significantly curtailed.
And, yes, people will probably use AI to summarize them as well.
It’s not a future I’m looking forward to.
Published