I use a an open-source tool called "rclone" to back up my data to the AWS S3 service; this data is then quickly migrated from the base S3 storage tier to another tier called "Glacier", which is less expensive.
The tradeoff for the savings is that files in the Glacier class are not immediately available; in order to be able to restore them I need to request that they be restored in S3 so I can copy them. Typically you restore them for a limited number of days (enough time for you to grab a copy) before it then reverts back to Glacier class.
The other wrinkle is: The files are encrypted. Not just the files but the file names and the file paths (enclosing folders/directories).
Here is the tricky part: The backup software does not have the ability to request a file be restored from files stored in the Glacier tier. I have to do that using the aws command line or the console. This is doubly tricky because I will have to request the exact file using the encrypted filename and path... not the name I actually know the files as.
So it turns out that rclone can actually tell me the encypted filename and path if I ask it correctly because of course they've dealt with this problem already. :)
I thought to myself "Here is a chance for ChatGPT to show its quality".
I'll skip to the chase:
ChatGPT gave me exactly the *opposite* instructions of what I asked for.
Instead of telling me how to get the encrypted filename path from the unencrypted equivalent it, instead, told me how to get the plaintext from the encrypted filename - which I didn't have. This is using the latest ChatGPT 4o, the very latest.
I question the usefulness of this kind of tool (meaning ChatGPT) for anyone who isn't an expert. I've done this long enough that I know of other sources to look at (such as the manual pages) but if you aren't that savvy I'm not sure how you would find the right answer.
The ability to regurgitate unstructured data with LLMs is amazing - almost magical when I compare it to other efforts to do the same that I have been involved in previously.
But the ability to summarize and present the data in an accurate, useful form is nowhere near acceptable.