3 ms·

None. But companies are doing regardless of what we think. If it works, it works. Verification of customer documents, monitoring and interpreting regulatory ch

by talles 2y ago

None. But companies are doing regardless of what we think. If it works, it works. Verification of customer documents, monitoring and interpreting regulatory changes, matching resumes to open positions, support ticket triage, better automated customer support, ...

cratermoon 2y ago
> If it works, it works. For very small values of "works".
rsynnott 2y ago
> If it works, it works. This is the critical bit, though. > Verification of customer documents There are quite serious consequences for getting this wrong, especially systematically (making a few mistakes, you may get away with, but you don't want to be the bank of choice for the North Korean secret service, say), so, if it turns out not to work well, "but the magic robot said so" will not be seen as an excuse, and there will be fines and maybe prison sentences. > monitoring and interpreting regulatory changes As above. "We're too cheap to ask a lawyer so we had a magic robot tell us if it was okay" _absolutely_ will not fly. > matching resumes to open positions "Half of the people we've hired for the last two years are totally useless, how are we screening these resumes again?" The customer support stuff is the only thing you've listed where a certain amount of failure is tolerable for many businesses (most customer support is already quite bad and often already uses questionable automation; if you have _good_ customer support you should be more cautious, but most companies don't). But using current LLMs for the important stuff? Nah, that's not going to go well.
- talles 2y ago
  I think you're misreading the situation by treating it as 'all or nothing'. If I'm not mistaken, it's common for a legal team to analyze documents in an hierarchical fashion. A less senior person reads and highlights part of a document, and later a more senior one carefully analyze those points. The 'easy' part of the job that is the target for automation. As for the verification of customer documents, oh boy, I've seem some stuff first hand and I can tell you that they are definitely not that careful.

by talles 2y ago

cratermoon 2y ago

> If it works, it works. For very small values of "works".

rsynnott 2y ago

> If it works, it works. This is the critical bit, though. > Verification of customer documents There are quite serious consequences for getting this wrong, especially systematically (making a few mistakes, you may get away with, but you don't want to be the bank of choice for the North Korean secret service, say), so, if it turns out not to work well, "but the magic robot said so" will not be seen as an excuse, and there will be fines and maybe prison sentences. > monitoring and interpreting regulatory changes As above. "We're too cheap to ask a lawyer so we had a magic robot tell us if it was okay" _absolutely_ will not fly. > matching resumes to open positions "Half of the people we've hired for the last two years are totally useless, how are we screening these resumes again?" The customer support stuff is the only thing you've listed where a certain amount of failure is tolerable for many businesses (most customer support is already quite bad and often already uses questionable automation; if you have _good_ customer support you should be more cautious, but most companies don't). But using current LLMs for the important stuff? Nah, that's not going to go well.

talles 2y ago
I think you're misreading the situation by treating it as 'all or nothing'. If I'm not mistaken, it's common for a legal team to analyze documents in an hierarchical fashion. A less senior person reads and highlights part of a document, and later a more senior one carefully analyze those points. The 'easy' part of the job that is the target for automation. As for the verification of customer documents, oh boy, I've seem some stuff first hand and I can tell you that they are definitely not that careful.