Today, out of curiosity, I tried to ask chatgpt the meaning of the `-P0` option of xargs command, as shown below.

In the following, the odd numbered items are asked by me, and even numbered items are the answers given by chatgpt:

--- begin quote ---
1. pidof sslocal | xargs -I{} -P0 ps -p {} -o command
2. This is a command that lists the command line of the process with the process ID (PID) of sslocal. Here is a breakdown of the different parts of the command:

pidof sslocal: This command returns the PID of the sslocal process.
|: This is a pipe operator that redirects the output of the pidof command to the next command.
xargs: This command takes the output of the previous command and passes it as an argument to the next command.
-I{}: This option tells xargs to replace occurrences of {} with the input it receives.
-P0: This option tells xargs to run the next command in parallel, with a maximum of 0 processes.
ps -p {} -o command=: This command lists the command line of the process with the PID passed in as an argument. The -p option specifies the PID, and the -o option specifies the output format, which in this case is the command line. The trailing = suppresses the header line in the output. The {} is replaced with the PID passed in by xargs.

3. -P0
4. The -P0 option in the xargs command specifies the maximum number of processes to run in parallel. In this case, it is set to 0, which means that xargs will execute the ps command for each PID passed in as input sequentially, one at a time.

Setting -P0 effectively disables parallel processing, which may be useful in situations where the system has limited resources or when the output order of the commands is important. In this case, it ensures that the ps command is executed for each PID in the same order that they were returned by the pidof command.
--- end quote ---

It seems that chatgpt completely reverses the meaning of this option. I don't know if anyone else here has tried similar tests.

Regards,
Zhao

On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 07:52:47 -0800 (PST), "hongy...@gmail.com"
<hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems that chatgpt completely reverses the meaning
> of this option.

Yes, it is not as good a reference as "man xargs".

> I don't know if anyone else here has tried similar tests.

I didn't try myself, but I read many reports about similar
"mistakes". It even appears to list information sources that
don't even exist.

Don't trust ChatGPT or it's Bing sister.

Just read the fine man pages ...
--
Kees Nuyt

On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 9:02:54 AM UTC-6, Kees Nuyt wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 07:52:47 -0800 (PST), "hongy...@gmail.com"
> <hongy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It seems that chatgpt completely reverses the meaning
> > of this option.
> Yes, it is not as good a reference as "man xargs".
> > I don't know if anyone else here has tried similar tests.
> I didn't try myself, but I read many reports about similar
> "mistakes". It even appears to list information sources that
> don't even exist.
>
> Don't trust ChatGPT or it's Bing sister.
>
> Just read the fine man pages ...
> --
> Kees Nuyt
ggryryyyryryryrrty

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 6:53:45 PM UTC-6, Jalen Q wrote:
> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 9:02:54 AM UTC-6, Kees Nuyt wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 07:52:47 -0800 (PST), "hongy...@gmail.com"
> > <hongy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It seems that chatgpt completely reverses the meaning
> > > of this option.
> > Yes, it is not as good a reference as "man xargs".
> > > I don't know if anyone else here has tried similar tests.
> > I didn't try myself, but I read many reports about similar
> > "mistakes". It even appears to list information sources that
> > don't even exist.
> >
> > Don't trust ChatGPT or it's Bing sister.
> >
> > Just read the fine man pages ...
> > --
> > Kees Nuyt
> ggryryyyryryryrrty
gfgfgfffftftftrfffgffftf