[simonw]

This isn't the first time this has happened, either. I do not understand how these consultancies - who sell these "reports" for six or seven digit sums - continue to mess this up. It should be excruciatingly embarrassing for them.

I guess nobody ever got fired for paying KPMG and friends for an expensive report that supported their priors.

[a_bonobo]

KPGM et al. are used as political ammo to push through internal changes. Those in power rely on consultancies underlying their decisions (painful redundancies, firings, etc.). Acknowledging that the arguments for these painful decisions was hallucinated will lead to many problems for powerful people, so for now it's best to just try and sweep it all under the rug.

[petre]

Isn't gmthat exacly how the EU ia tring to regulate AI? Like don't use it for firing people, credit scores etc.

[tjwebbnorfolk]

These six-figure reports are produced by underpaid kids in their twenties working 18 hours a day.

The purpose of paying for these reports is for executives to have someone else to blame when their idea doesn't work. It has nothing to do with the correctness of the content.

[overfeed]

> These six-figure reports are produced by underpaid kids in their twenties working 18 hours a day.

That's accurate, for the first draft. Similar to big legal firms - subsequent versions are signed-off and passed up (and if revisions request, down) the hierarchy, each stratum with its own billing rate(s).

Which makes me wonder when the hallucinations got added.

[tjwebbnorfolk]

Not where I used to work. Any "sign off" was some director making sure the letterhead looked right.

[overfeed]

> Not where I used to work

It can't have been at any of the big 4, because partners aren't skipping 4+ org-chart layers to look at draft documents written by early-career associates. I have no experience with body shops - if that's where you were.

[NoPicklez]

I would have to disagree, this report in question sounds more like thought leadership dribble rather than a report commissioned by a client with a scope attached.

The purpose of most reports are absolutely for Assurance to decision makers or management and often times, we disagree with management or provide a view that might not favorable. Which just reflects the realities of what we have identified or tested.

As I said, this seems like thought leadership dribble which absolutely even as someone who has worked in Big 4, I think they're pretty average.

[esseph]

This is absolutely correct in my experience. It's solely finger pointing insurance.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The problem is that there's a lot of people running around who believe the polite fictions we tell ourselves about review processes. It's very hard to explain why it doesn't work to have someone manually clean up a sloppy AI draft without discussing the fact, which many people find unacceptable, that manual review can't catch all errors.

[yieldcrv]

> I guess nobody ever got fired for paying KPMG and friends for an expensive report that supported their priors.

I mean basically. KMPG is a regulatory checkmark in some industries