In many cases the skills are available in house to do the necessary vetting, but these people are already overwhelmed with their existing day to day.
Anyone remember that item a few months back about Amazon now having senior engineers vet generative AI output (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47323017)? I had to LOL when I read that. These folks are already slammed. And the idea that Amazon would allow human bottlenecks to multiply across projects and underlying infrastructure development is ridiculous.
Why?
So if they're having humans proofread what the AI produces, they must have found that to be necessary.
I'm pushing the need for basic engineering principles across whole organisations.
You wouldn't give an engineer 1000 lines of code to review without the original spec of what you're trying to achieve for context (at a minimum, ideally the reviewer was in the room when the work was introduced, and has full context).
So, these docs, they're given as an all or nothing.
Do you push back on the 39th metric that is defined to the utmost detail? Or just resign yourself to the fact that it is what it is?
A one (6 is the goto if we're talking Amazon?!) pager.. "this is what I am proposing" at least gives the skeleton of the idea to push back at the general shape of the idea, refine it, before all the emotional investment of your precious report being complete.
Y'know.. the traditional product running through the spec in a SCRUM* environment.. the engineers doing proper code reviews..
* Yes SCRUM is dead, but that's another thing.
It's unsurprising that trying to do more with less results in lower quality.
If you ever needed evidence to not buy “advice” from such outfits, this is exhibit one.
I think their audit work is in a downwards spiral. Audit has become so competitive that they are struggling to find ways to make it cheaper. They have become slaves to reducing the hours booked, and the rate of those hours. To do this they substitute less experienced people all the time. You used to be able to chat with your partner about an issue you have coming up, now you get their assistant if you are lucky. By chasing 'efficiency' they have lost their value-add. Now the first time the partner has looked at your file is right before the clearance meeting, and they spot issues that should have been picked up earlier and tested on the day you should be signing. So you end up doing it all again. I'm trying to coin a term for the inneficiency caused by chasing efficiency.
I don't know but I would expect it to be realtively easy for an LLM to detect "hallucinations".
I think this may be part of the problem. The actual humans creating the report don't have the expertise to know which one to trust. At least that was what consulting was like in my experience in a similar firm.
I don't know but I would expect it to be relatively easy for an LLM to detect "hallucinations".
Now nobody will remember or notice.
Performative executives of yesteryear that constantly need external validation and direction and operate through hive mind and groupthink are weak and will die.
I believe some of the biggest problems in today's business leaders is an inability to be open to new information, think across traditional professional boundaries, and to ask meaningful questions.
AI simply exposes this unapologetically.
Bad management (this includes most government): up your game or get out of the way.
Sycophantic consultant firms: die.
The Economist should do an article on this.
Not fully baked, worse: made to sound confidently correct, orthogonally its actual correctness.
I think a lot of the time it's just pure laziness. AI gives people a magical "do all the work for me" button and it can bring out the worst in them.
You mean the people they fired and demoralized?
One of the things that "great [wo]men" like about "vibe-coding" (and that includes blindly producing non-code product), is that they, and they alone can now do what used to require the painful process of "passing it to context experts."
Now, the LLM is a "built-in context expert," and they don't need to vet the output anymore.
raro11•40m ago
bokkies•38m ago
umpalumpaaa•37m ago
snailmailman•36m ago
I’ll have to try again later on desktop. The content looks interesting but it’s literally impossible to read. I cannot get past the section that introduces Ernst and Young.
1000100_1000101•4m ago
It might "work" just fine on mobile (or not) but you may have stopped trying before reaching the point of re-scrolling, because it's insane.
lelandfe•2m ago
kavok•19m ago
bbddg•14m ago