3 ms·

I don't think thats obvious. In 20 minutes for example, deep research can write a report on a given topic much better than an analyst can produce in a day or tw

I don't think thats obvious. In 20 minutes for example, deep research can write a report on a given topic much better than an analyst can produce in a day or two. It's literally cheaper, better, and faster than human effort.

jrflowers 10mo ago
What do you man by “better” in this context?
- fcantournet 10mo ago
  It has more words put together in seemingly correct sentences, so it's long enough his boss won't actually read it to proof it.
- missedthecue 10mo ago
  It synthesizes a more comprehensive report, using more sources, more varied sources, more data, and broader insights than a human analyst can produce in 1-2 days of research and writing. I'm not confused about this. If you don't agree, I will assume it's probably because you've never employed a human to do similar work in the past. Because it's not particularly close. It's night and day. *Note that I'm not saying 20 minutes of deep research beats 9 months of investigative journalism with private interviews with primary sources or anything like that. I'm talking about asking an analyst on your team to do a deep dive into XYZ and have something on your desk tomorrow EOD.
  - jrflowers 10mo ago
    > It synthesizes a more comprehensive report, using more sources, more varied sources, more data, and broader insights than a human analyst can produce in 1-2 days of research and writing. > Note that I'm not saying 20 minutes of deep research beats 9 months of investigative journalism with private interviews with primary sources or anything like that. I like the idea that AI is objectively better at doing analysis if you simply assume that it takes a person nine months to make a phone call
  - freejazz 10mo ago
    Weird, I'm an attorney and no one is getting rid of associates in order to have LLMs do the research, no less so when they actually hallucinate sources (something associates wont do). I can't imagine that being significantly different in other domains.
    - jrflowers 10mo ago
      > I can't imagine that being significantly different in other domains. It’s not. There is no industry where AI performs “better” than humans reliably without torturing the meaning of the word (for example, OP says AI is better at analysis iff the act of analysis does not include any form of communication to find or clarify information from primary sources)
D-Machine 10mo ago
Faster? Yes. Cheaper? Probably, but you need to amortize in all the infrastructure and training and energy costs. Better? Lol no.
- arevno 10mo ago
  > but you need to amortize in all the infrastructure and training and energy costs The average American human consumes 232kWh of all-in energy (food, transport, hvac, construction, services, etc) daily. If humans want to get into a competition over lower energy input per unit of cognitive output, I doubt you'd like the result. > Better? Lol no The "IQ equivalent" of the current SOTA models (Opus 4.5, Gemini 3 Pro, GPT 5.2, Grok 4.1) is already a full 1SD above the human mean. Nations and civilizations have perished or been conquered all throughout history because they underestimated and laughed off the relative strength of their rivals. By all means, keep doing this, but know the risks.

jrflowers 10mo ago

What do you man by “better” in this context?

fcantournet 10mo ago
It has more words put together in seemingly correct sentences, so it's long enough his boss won't actually read it to proof it.
missedthecue 10mo ago
It synthesizes a more comprehensive report, using more sources, more varied sources, more data, and broader insights than a human analyst can produce in 1-2 days of research and writing. I'm not confused about this. If you don't agree, I will assume it's probably because you've never employed a human to do similar work in the past. Because it's not particularly close. It's night and day. *Note that I'm not saying 20 minutes of deep research beats 9 months of investigative journalism with private interviews with primary sources or anything like that. I'm talking about asking an analyst on your team to do a deep dive into XYZ and have something on your desk tomorrow EOD.
- jrflowers 10mo ago
  > It synthesizes a more comprehensive report, using more sources, more varied sources, more data, and broader insights than a human analyst can produce in 1-2 days of research and writing. > Note that I'm not saying 20 minutes of deep research beats 9 months of investigative journalism with private interviews with primary sources or anything like that. I like the idea that AI is objectively better at doing analysis if you simply assume that it takes a person nine months to make a phone call
- freejazz 10mo ago
  Weird, I'm an attorney and no one is getting rid of associates in order to have LLMs do the research, no less so when they actually hallucinate sources (something associates wont do). I can't imagine that being significantly different in other domains.
  - jrflowers 10mo ago
    > I can't imagine that being significantly different in other domains. It’s not. There is no industry where AI performs “better” than humans reliably without torturing the meaning of the word (for example, OP says AI is better at analysis iff the act of analysis does not include any form of communication to find or clarify information from primary sources)

D-Machine 10mo ago

Faster? Yes. Cheaper? Probably, but you need to amortize in all the infrastructure and training and energy costs. Better? Lol no.

arevno 10mo ago
> but you need to amortize in all the infrastructure and training and energy costs The average American human consumes 232kWh of all-in energy (food, transport, hvac, construction, services, etc) daily. If humans want to get into a competition over lower energy input per unit of cognitive output, I doubt you'd like the result. > Better? Lol no The "IQ equivalent" of the current SOTA models (Opus 4.5, Gemini 3 Pro, GPT 5.2, Grok 4.1) is already a full 1SD above the human mean. Nations and civilizations have perished or been conquered all throughout history because they underestimated and laughed off the relative strength of their rivals. By all means, keep doing this, but know the risks.