7 ms·
It doesn't seem like you've really replaced anyone with this. You spent 8 hours doing the work that you could have paid an SQL analyst to do in much less. Unle
by devmor 4y ago
It doesn't seem like you've really replaced anyone with this. You spent 8 hours doing the work that you could have paid an SQL analyst to do in much less.
Unless you're saying that your time is worth less than you'd pay the analyst?
- jhugo 4y agoThey built a bot which can answer any number of questions, each of which would have needed some analyst time. Given that the analyst rotation was an entire day once every N weeks, and the bot took 1 day to make, this is going to pay for itself after 1 week. This all assumes that the bot doesn't need tweaking for every answer — i.e. it gets at least some answers right without needing modifications to the bot — which appears to be the case based on the examples in the post.
- freejazz 4y agoBut, generally and unless there is a glaringly wrong result, only an analyst is going to know if the bot is right or not... what exactly does that gain you?
- catothedev 4y agoIt gets you a really sophisticated 'auto-complete' feature
- freejazz 4y agoNot really. I'd guess that most people can tell if auto-complete is providing the answer they "wanted".
- kqr 4y agoMaybe it's not a position where it is critical that all answers are 100 % accurate. Maybe getting it right every once in a while is enough to pay for the GPT compute time, but not really for analyst time.
- anentropic 4y agoSeems like the issue would be you'd generally get results that 'look' right but would never know if they were actually right without going through and... analysing them
- kqr 4y agoI'm saying there are applications where you don't have to know! As long as the fraction incorrect is less than 50 % and you have 2:1 odds on the consequences you don't have to know which 50 % are incorrect.
- freejazz 4y agoReally? Then why pay for the thing in the first place. Why keep the data and make the queries if the results don't actually matter? I'm impressed that you have the ability to envision such a possibility, perhaps you can use that ability to come up with something reasonably likely as opposed to "conceptually possible".
- kqr 4y agoI'm trying to think of easy examples. You're right that none obvious come to mind. I'm sure there is a sweetspot where we can make more money from cheap-but-sometimes-wrong GPT queries than paying for an analyst to be more definitively correct, but I'm tired and a bit fuzzy on the exact parameters. I'll continue to think about it and write something up!
- freejazz 4y agoHard to imagine a business model where you sell that data that is only right 60% of the time. Maybe in a world where the other best data is even less reliable.
- moonchrome 4y agoIf you're OK with garbage data you don't need ChatGPT - you can probably make up plausible data on your own. Unless you're building some lorem ipsum stuff.
- antihipocrat 4y agoI think the idea is that once built it would be a service that could parse a question, then automatically develop and run any query in response. Sounds cool until it produces the wrong results.. then you'll need to hire an analyst to check every query just in case.
- skissane 4y agoPut the requests in a queue. Have the bot generate the response. Then forward the response to a human analyst to double-check. A human can surely double-check a response much faster than they can produce one from scratch. In many professions, it is common to have junior staff members do the grunt work, and then the more senior staff just review their work and either sign off on it, correct it, or send it back to be redone. You could use the same pattern here, replacing the junior staff with an AI, but keeping the senior one.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kqr 4y agoAs if the analyst doesn't get the results wrong! For 1/50 of the price, maybe a few more errors are acceptable, even.
- desert_rue 4y agoWhich errors are you okay with?
- kqr 4y agoThe ones for which I would refer the question to GPT. We are still in control of which questions go to GPT/the intern analyst (less critical ones, where a fraction erroneous are okay) and which go to the resident expert analyst.
- stkni 4y agoThis is a good point. If the users know the difference the costs and benefits between using GPT and not using it then it certainly has value if those users are also willing to accept that not every answer needs to be 100% accurate. In my experience business people often have a 'nose' for the right number and will bluff it out if the numbers are wrong and they're challenged. Blue sky things or stuff you're putting in the annual report should be left to hoomans IMHO.