There are plenty of use cases where this is a great starting place to be able to jump in and start to ask questions.
I have worked on a variety of acquisitions where I didn’t need to have 100% certainty, I just needed a starting place to make sense of some bizarre home grown financials and something like this would’ve been great to be able to quickly probe and come back with thoughtful questions.
Instead I spent my time either tediously figuring out a schema or waiting for someone in finance to come back with ad-hoc analysis that also had a bunch of errors.
> Why are you pretending this is a binary outcome?
You seem confused. My argument is not at all concerned with outcomes and is not binary in the slightest. My point is clearly spelled out:
> Comparing LLMs to random humans is the wrong methodology.
I’m not saying LLMs are never useful or anything of the sort. What I am saying is that defending LLMs on the basis of “some random undefined human would do the same” is a poor argument which shows a deep misunderstanding of human collaboration.
There are plenty of use cases where this is a great starting place to be able to jump in and start to ask questions.
I have worked on a variety of acquisitions where I didn’t need to have 100% certainty, I just needed a starting place to make sense of some bizarre home grown financials and something like this would’ve been great to be able to quickly probe and come back with thoughtful questions.
Instead I spent my time either tediously figuring out a schema or waiting for someone in finance to come back with ad-hoc analysis that also had a bunch of errors.