> nearly as accurate as a human book keeper Anything to avoid using the metric system. Though seriously, what is this metric? Why would I care if an LLM is accurate as a human bookkeeper? Humans aren't exactly known for perfect recall.
GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper
11–20 of 131 posts
Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would I want both a less accurate book keeper and to incur all of the liability of doing the books myself?!
Presumably your current book keeper is not your slave, and you have to pay them...
Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper
#13We're all unhinged about the data we're giving LLMs but here I'd draw the line. I'd rather keep paying the small amount I pay to have my accounts done.
Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper
#14Oh, I'm actively doing this at the moment. FreeAgent grabs my transactions from Wise already, and then I give it [Claude Code, in fact] a folder of PDFs to attach to my invoices, including figuring out VAT, and it's uploading what it found using the FreeAgent API. My accountant hasn't complained yet, and it seems considerably more accurate than when my wife was doing it. Quiet plug for https://github.com/pjlsergeant/…
We've used the following CLI to do the freeagent upload:
https://github.com/anjor/freeagent-cli
How are you dealing with finding the receipts? Would you like to try a receipt finder that grabs them from your mailbox/ google drive?
Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper
#15https://digits.com/downloads/beyond-the-hype-evaluating-llms...
Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd care if you had a human bookkeeper and you were considering replacing them with this company's AI bookkeeper.
Why would I want both a less accurate book keeper and to incur all of the liability of doing the books myself?!
In everyday life the human is less careful, and the machine costs 1% of the human.
Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper
#17It's also not hard to imagine tax authorities using AI to audit everyone's tax returns every year.
We sure live in interesting times.
Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper
#18I'd be scared shitless to even try something like this. There is just a pretty website, a video, and a blog post. No info on the founders, I can't find anything on LinkedIn, just a company Vineyard Finance LTD that was incorporated last year. We're all unhinged about the data we're giving LLMs but here I'd draw the line. I'd rather keep paying the small amount I pay to have my accounts done.
For slightly out of date founder bios (both Adam and Iva) were also co-founders here:
Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably your current book keeper is not your slave, and you have to pay them...
...again: liability is the key issue. Cost savings a not exactly an isolated issue here.
Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper
#20This doesn't surprise me at all. You can really constrain this problem, give very narrow context, and get pretty reliable and reproducible results. I've gotten very good results with some vibe-coded deepseek book keeping. https://github.com/traverseda/beansync Parses emails or other sources, extracts numbers, correlates different transactions, web search, asks questions, stores notes (regex based, very simple). The h…