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

I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 346 posts

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#91

Post by Telemakhos »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #48
brazukadev wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brendas have fucked it up multiple times, by themselves or because their boss demanded

The underlying assumption is that Brenda generally does her job pretty well. Human errors exist but usually peers/managers (or the person who did it) can identify and correct them reliably. If we have to compare LLM’s against people who are bad at their jobs in order to highlight their utility we’re going the wrong direction.

There are a lot of underlying assumptions: Brenda, the woman, is accurate and trustworthy and has mastered an accurate and trustworthy technology; the upper manager, the male, will introduce error by not understanding that the technology he brings to bear on the situation is hallucinatory. The woman is lower in status and pay than the male. The woman is necessary to the functioning of "the economy" and "capitalism," while the man threatens those. There are a lot of unsubtle political undertones on TikTok.

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#92

Post by afandian »

elevatortrim wrote: post #60
quixoticaxolotl wrote: post #39

I find the contrast between two narratives around technology use so fascinating: 1. We advocate automation because people like Brenda are error-prone and machines are perfect. 2. We disavow AI because people like Brenda are perfect and the machine is error-prone. These aren't contradictions because we only advocate for automation in limited contexts: when the task is understandable, the execution is reliable, the pro…

No contradiction here: When we say “machine”, we mean deterministic algorithms and predictable mechanisms. Generative AI is neither of those things (in theory it is deterministic but not for any practical applications). If we order by predictability: Quick Sort > Brenda > Gen AI

I was brought up on the refrain of "aren't computers silly, they do exactly what you tell them to do to the letter, even if it's not what you meant". That had its roots in computers mostly being programmable BASIC machines.

Then came the apps and notifications, and we had to caveat "... when you're writing programs". Which is a diminishing part of the computer experience.

And now we have to append "... unless you're using AI tools".

The distinction is clear to technical people. But it seems like an increasingly niche and alien thing from the broader societal perspective.

I think we need a new refrain, because with the AI stuff it increasingly seems "computers do what they want, don't even get it right, but pretend that they did."

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#93

Post by hansmayer »

quixoticaxolotl wrote: post #39

I find the contrast between two narratives around technology use so fascinating: 1. We advocate automation because people like Brenda are error-prone and machines are perfect. 2. We disavow AI because people like Brenda are perfect and the machine is error-prone. These aren't contradictions because we only advocate for automation in limited contexts: when the task is understandable, the execution is reliable, the pro…

> So, then - why don't people embrace AI with thinking mode as an acceptable form of automation

Mainly because Generative AI _is not automation_ . Automation is set on fixed ruleset, predictable, reliable and actually saving time. Generative AI ...is whatever it is, it is definitely not automation.

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#95

Post by Zigurd »

It's verifier law.

Coding agents are useful and good and real products because when they screw up, things stop working almost always before they can do damage. Coding agents are flawed in ways that existing tools are good at catching, never mind the more obvious build and runtime errors.

Letting AI write your emails and create your P&L and cash flow projections doesn't have to run the gauntlet of tools that were created to stop flawed humans from creating bad code.

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#96

Post by svnt »

fancyfredbot wrote: post #36

This is transparent nonsense. People are very very happy to introduce errors into excel spreadsheets without any help from AI. Financial statements are correct because of auditors who check the numbers. If you have a good audit process then errors get detected even if AI helped introduce them. If you aren't doing a good audit then I suspect nobody cares whether your financial statement is correct (anyone who did woul…

It’s like calling out the county to inspect the home you built but when they arrive it’s a bouncy castle.

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#97

Post by Forgeties79 »

Telemakhos wrote: post #91
Forgeties79 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The underlying assumption is that Brenda generally does her job pretty well. Human errors exist but usually peers/managers (or the person who did it) can identify and correct them reliably. If we have to compare LLM’s against people who are bad at their jobs in order to highlight their utility we’re going the wrong direction.

There are a lot of underlying assumptions: Brenda, the woman, is accurate and trustworthy and has mastered an accurate and trustworthy technology; the upper manager, the male, will introduce error by not understanding that the technology he brings to bear on the situation is hallucinatory. The woman is lower in status and pay than the male. The woman is necessary to the functioning of "the economy" and "capitalism,"…

I was focused on a particular element but sure

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#98

Post by [deleted] »

elevatortrim wrote: post #60
quixoticaxolotl wrote: post #39

I find the contrast between two narratives around technology use so fascinating: 1. We advocate automation because people like Brenda are error-prone and machines are perfect. 2. We disavow AI because people like Brenda are perfect and the machine is error-prone. These aren't contradictions because we only advocate for automation in limited contexts: when the task is understandable, the execution is reliable, the pro…

No contradiction here: When we say “machine”, we mean deterministic algorithms and predictable mechanisms. Generative AI is neither of those things (in theory it is deterministic but not for any practical applications). If we order by predictability: Quick Sort > Brenda > Gen AI

[deleted]

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#99

Post by conductr »

Esophagus4 wrote: post #25

Hmmm the Brendas I know look a little different. “There are two Brendas - their job is to make spreadsheets in the Finance department. Well, not quite - they add the months and categories to empty spreadsheets, then they ask the other departments to fill in their sales numbers every month so it can be presented to management. “The two Brendas don’t seem to talk, otherwise they would realize that they’re both asking e…

I work in corporate finance and these issues are certainly present. However, they are almost always known and determined low priority to have a better process built. Finance processes are nearly always a non priority as a pure cost center/overhead there’s not many companies that want to invest in improving the situation, they’ll limp along with minimal investment even once big and profitable.

That said, every finance function is different and it may be unknown to them that you’re being asked for some data multiple times. If you’re enduring this process, I’m of the opinion you’re equally at fault. Suggest a solution that will be easier on you. As it’s possible they don’t even know it’s happening. In the case provided, email to all relevant finance people “Here’s a link to a shared workbook. I’ll drop the numbers here monthly, please save the link and get the data directly from that file. Thanks!” Problem solved. Until you don’t follow through which is what causes most finance people to be constantly asking for data/things. So be kind and also set yourself a monthly recurring reminder on your calendar and actually follow through.

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#100

Post by philipallstar »

elevatortrim wrote: post #60
quixoticaxolotl wrote: post #39

I find the contrast between two narratives around technology use so fascinating: 1. We advocate automation because people like Brenda are error-prone and machines are perfect. 2. We disavow AI because people like Brenda are perfect and the machine is error-prone. These aren't contradictions because we only advocate for automation in limited contexts: when the task is understandable, the execution is reliable, the pro…

No contradiction here: When we say “machine”, we mean deterministic algorithms and predictable mechanisms. Generative AI is neither of those things (in theory it is deterministic but not for any practical applications). If we order by predictability: Quick Sort > Brenda > Gen AI

> If we order by predictability:

> Quick Sort > Brenda > Gen AI

Those last two might be the wrong way round.

Post reply on HN