[jhugo]

They 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]

But, 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?

[kqr]

Maybe 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]

Seems 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]

I'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]

Really? 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]

I'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!

[moonchrome]

If 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.

[kqr]

I might not be okay with only garbage data, but data that are correct 60 % of the time may be good enough for some use cases, when it can be had for 1/50 of the price.

[freejazz]

Then posit such a scenario as opposed to just the numbers...

[catothedev]

It gets you a really sophisticated 'auto-complete' feature

[freejazz]

Not really. I'd guess that most people can tell if auto-complete is providing the answer they "wanted".