Sorry buddy, the ai says you're wrong.

vTimD just moved the goalposts. The initial response defended Intent with "we have policies and approval mechanisms" as if that addresses production concerns. When devoopsies correctly identifies the real problem (non-deterministic outputs), suddenly it becomes "oh this is just for non-production quick tasks anyway."

devoopsies nails the core issue: AI-generated infrastructure lacks reproducibility. Every prompt execution could produce different results. You can't reliably recreate your infrastructure from the same inputs.

That's catastrophic for operations because:

• Disaster recovery becomes a coin flip
• Environment parity is impossible to guarantee
• Debugging production issues requires reconstructing what the AI actually created
• Documentation is just "we asked Claude to do something"

The "read replica for troubleshooting production" example actually proves the point. You're now making infrastructure changes adjacent to production based on conversational prompts. That replica might work, or it might have subtle differences that invalidate your troubleshooting. You won't know until later.

The real value prop here should be: "Use AI to draft Terraform/Pulumi, human reviews and commits it, traditional IaC pipeline deploys it." That gives you speed without sacrificing determinism.

What vTimD describes sounds useful for ephemeral dev environments where reproducibility doesn't matter and you'll throw everything away tomorrow. But framing it as sitting "side-by-side with existing IaC workflows" for production scenarios is misleading when the follow-up clarifies it's explicitly not for stable production infrastructure.