|
|
|
|
|
by joshstrange
219 days ago
|
|
> Rather, people have to ask questions of it, and interact with the data. Increasingly, that is via AI tooling. That is, given all my own experiences on that front, terrifying if "increasingly" people are interacting with their data via AI tooling. In all the testing I've done, it can seem like magic "Look, it just told us XXX piece of data and we just asked a simple question!" but LLMs, even with copious amounts of context, are not good at understanding your business rules for understanding your data. And that goes for just about any company with more than "Pet Store"-level complexity (especially after years or decades of the data growing/changing). Perhaps this has improved/changed but I used LLMs daily and nothing indicates to me that it's improved enough to make this worthwhile. Any AI-only interface to data I would assume is either dealing with a laughably simple dataset/schema (or super new) or lying to you constantly. |
|
Our own experience running internal agents taught us that the best remediation comes from providing the LLMs with the maximum and most accurate context possible. Robust evaluations are also critical to measure accuracy, detect regressions, and improve. But there is no silver bullet.
SOTA LLMs are increasingly better at generating SQL and notoriously bad with math and numbers in general. Combining them with powerful querying capabilities bridges that gap and makes the overall experience an useful one.
IMO, we'll always have to deal with the stochastic nature of these models and hallucinations, which calls for caution and requires raising awareness within the user base. What I found watching our users internally is that, while it's not magical, it allows users to request data more often, and compounds in data-driven decision-making, assuming the users are trained to interpret the interactions