Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT-4 significantly increased performance of business consultants

d3.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 282 posts

Re: ChatGPT-4 significantly increased performance of business consultants

#111

Post by hutzlibu »

Roark66 wrote: post #101
hutzlibu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs are not worthless for programming. You just cannot expect it to ship a full programm for you, but for generating functions with limited scope, I found it very useful. How to make use of a new and common libary for example. But of course you have to check and test. And for text I know people who use it succesfully (professionally) to generate texts for them as a summary from some data. They still have to proof re…

>LLMs are not worthless for programming. They can be worse than worthless. They can sabotage your work if you let them making you spend even more time fixing it afterwards. For an example. I've used Gpt4 as a sort of Google on steroids with prompts like "do subnets in gcloud span azs" and ", "in gcloud secret manager can you access secrets across regions". I very quickly learned to ask "is it true" after every answer…

"They can be worse than worthless."

But that is the same, when you blindly follow some stackoverflow answer.

And yes, I always have to tweak and I use it only rarely. But when I did, it was faster than googling and parsing the results.

Re: ChatGPT-4 significantly increased performance of business consultants

#112

Post by FrustratedMonky »

Roark66 wrote: post #101
hutzlibu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs are not worthless for programming. You just cannot expect it to ship a full programm for you, but for generating functions with limited scope, I found it very useful. How to make use of a new and common libary for example. But of course you have to check and test. And for text I know people who use it succesfully (professionally) to generate texts for them as a summary from some data. They still have to proof re…

>LLMs are not worthless for programming. They can be worse than worthless. They can sabotage your work if you let them making you spend even more time fixing it afterwards. For an example. I've used Gpt4 as a sort of Google on steroids with prompts like "do subnets in gcloud span azs" and ", "in gcloud secret manager can you access secrets across regions". I very quickly learned to ask "is it true" after every answer…

>"I found it useful for generating skeletons I then have to fill by hand or tweak".

Even this can be a big time saver, that increases productivity.

Just like others have said, it isn't going to write a Pynchon novel, but it does do a great job at the other 99% of general writing that is done.

Same for computers, the average programmer isn't creating some new Dijkstra Algorithm every day, they are really just cranking out connecting things together and doing the equivalent of 'generic boiler plate'.

Re: ChatGPT-4 significantly increased performance of business consultants

#113

Post by foooorsyth »

School-Cotton wrote: post #85
dopylitty wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m starting to think there’s an LLM equivalent to the old saying about how everything the media writes is accurate except on the topics you’re an expert in. All LLM output looks to be good quality except when it’s output you’re an expert in. People who have no background in writing or editing think LLMs will revolutionize those fields. Actual writers and editors take one look at LLM output and can see it’s basically…

I honestly don’t understand how people can say LLMs are useless for coding. Have you tried ChatGPT 4, or are you basing this take on the obsolete 3.5? I’m a professional programmer and I think LLMs are extremely useful.

I’ve used GPT 4. It’s not helpful in any domain in which I’m already proficient. If I’m having to use a new language or platform for whatever reason it’s mildly quicker than alt-tabbing to stack overflow, but probably not worth the subscription.

For graphics tasks GenAI is absurdly helpful for me. I can code but I can’t draw. Getting icons and logos without having to pay a designer is great.

Re: ChatGPT-4 significantly increased performance of business consultants

#114

Post by noelwelsh »

hubraumhugo wrote: post #15

Well, this sounds like perfect tasks for GPT: "Participants responded to a total of 18 tasks (or as many as they could within the given time frame). These tasks spanned various domains. Specifically, they can be categorized into four types: creativity (e.g., “Propose at least 10 ideas for a new shoe targeting an underserved market or sport.”), analytical thinking (e.g., “Segment the footwear industry market based on…

The GPT responses read like they were lifted from MAD magazine.

Re: ChatGPT-4 significantly increased performance of business consultants

#115

Post by doitLP »

AdamCraven wrote: post #78

Well, they buried the lede with this one. Using LLMs were better for some tasks and actually made it worse for others. The first task was a generalist task ("inside the frontier" as they refer to it), which I'm not surprised has improved performance, as it purposely made to fall into an LLM's areas of strength: research into well-defined areas where you might not have strong domain knowledge. This also is the mainsta…

I was thinking about this last night. It’s a new version of Gell-Mann amnesia. I call it LLm-man amnesia.

When I ask a programming question, chat GPT hallucinates something about 20% of the time and I can only tell because I’m skilled enough to see it. For all the other domains I ask it questions if I should assume at least as much hallucination and incorrect information.

Re: ChatGPT-4 significantly increased performance of business consultants

#116

Post by FrustratedMonky »

wqtz wrote: post #62
t8sr wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, write drunk, but edit sober.

My apologies. I agree. How long does it take for Ketamine to wear off? I only had a little bit after breakfast. I hope the edit button stays.

Maybe it was done on Ketamine, but the points are valid. Have seen it, consultants don't really bring 'new' or 'creative' solutions, they just help move the ideas around the calcified layers in the organization.

Re: ChatGPT-4 significantly increased performance of business consultants

#117

Post by momirlan »

mgaunard wrote: post #2

Says more about how useless BCG consultants are.

perfect tool for a consultancy: take a fresh graduate, pair it with a LLM tool and charge big bucks. not much different from current but the client will get a much more confident consultant and will be happy to fork more money.

Re: ChatGPT-4 significantly increased performance of business consultants

#118

Post by [deleted] »

refurb wrote: post #94
olalonde wrote: post #50

HN is so bad at predictions. Just a few months ago HN was awash with comments that confidently claimed LLMs were no more than stochastic parrots and unlikely to amount to anything. > I can't help but think the next AI winter is around the corner. [0] Yeah, right. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23886325

I'm not sure this paper is proof of much? Regurgitating press releases is sort of a stochastic parrot task.

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT-4 significantly increased performance of business consultants

#119

Post by ftxbro »

dopylitty wrote: post #22
mgaunard wrote: post #2

Says more about how useless BCG consultants are.

I’m starting to think there’s an LLM equivalent to the old saying about how everything the media writes is accurate except on the topics you’re an expert in. All LLM output looks to be good quality except when it’s output you’re an expert in. People who have no background in writing or editing think LLMs will revolutionize those fields. Actual writers and editors take one look at LLM output and can see it’s basically…

> I’m starting to think there’s an LLM equivalent to the old saying about how everything the media writes is accurate except on the topics you’re an expert in.

This is true for media articles but for LLMs I feel like it's the opposite. Like people who aren't specialists don't fully appreciate how great it is at those tasks.

Re: ChatGPT-4 significantly increased performance of business consultants

#120

Post by DonHopkins »

segfaltnh wrote: post #14
_jplc wrote: post #8

Pipe /dev/random, transform to decimal, and you just got an amazing increase in performance for calculating decimals of Pi. Nobody said precision was important anyway.

Honestly if you don't care about precision, /dev/zero is going to give you more throughput. Plus, I personally guarantee it's correct to within an error margin of 4.0. You can't offer the same with /dev/random!

I always wanted the minor number of the device /dev/zero uses to select the byte you get, so if you go "mknod /dev/seven c 1 7" that would make an infinite source of beeps!
Post reply on HN