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

GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper

toot-books.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 131 posts

Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper

#101

Post by jimnotgym »

frereubu wrote: post #49
ofjcihen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hahaha non-deterministic accounting probably won’t fly well with the IRS

That made me laugh, thanks. I remember talking to my accountant in the UK a long time ago when I was newly self-employed, asking if I could pass something off as a business expense that was sort-of-related, but I knew probably not really OK. Her reply has stuck with me ever since: "HMRC [the UK equivalent of the IRS] are interested in matters of fact, not interpretation."

As an accountant at a large Corp, I can tell you that there are cases daily where two senior accountants argue over how to interpret accounting and tax rules, and often each agrees that the others interpretation is valid. I regularly see rulings from area specialists, and have to challenge them, only to be told, 'well in that case, you would be right'

I sometimes ask an AI to comment, and usually their answer is couched is ifs and maybes, just like the humans.

I often consult with auditors who tell me x is wrong, and they go away agreeing that y and z would be valid too, and x is also fine. There are often second order effects that need to be thought through.

Good luck AI

Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper

#102

Post by ofjcihen »

Pragmata wrote: post #94
ofjcihen wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha even if this was true (it’s not) you’re basically saying “humans will make some mistakes so let’s throw caution to the wind” which is probably the worst application of AI that I’ve heard yet.

>Ha even if this was true (it’s not) You haven't met many accountants i see. Regardless that's not what he is saying. If there is an acceptable margin of error for humans, we should be able to measure it for AI, and once AI is within those margins then it should be feasible to replace the human.

Ah yes, because there’s no difference between a shifted decimal and entirely hallucinated credits and debits.

This was my CPA wife’s response btw.

The entire field is based on balance sheets and context that informs compliance.

Let me put it this way: it’s such a bad idea that even Intuit doesn’t let their AI replace a human.

Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper

#103

Post by fragmede »

ofjcihen wrote: post #102
Pragmata wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ha even if this was true (it’s not) You haven't met many accountants i see. Regardless that's not what he is saying. If there is an acceptable margin of error for humans, we should be able to measure it for AI, and once AI is within those margins then it should be feasible to replace the human.

Ah yes, because there’s no difference between a shifted decimal and entirely hallucinated credits and debits. This was my CPA wife’s response btw. The entire field is based on balance sheets and context that informs compliance. Let me put it this way: it’s such a bad idea that even Intuit doesn’t let their AI replace a human.

Why would Intuit be the barometer here? They're old technology. Pilot.com's got AI bookkeepers and they love them.

Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper

#104

Post by ofjcihen »

jimnotgym wrote: post #101
frereubu wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That made me laugh, thanks. I remember talking to my accountant in the UK a long time ago when I was newly self-employed, asking if I could pass something off as a business expense that was sort-of-related, but I knew probably not really OK. Her reply has stuck with me ever since: "HMRC [the UK equivalent of the IRS] are interested in matters of fact, not interpretation."

As an accountant at a large Corp, I can tell you that there are cases daily where two senior accountants argue over how to interpret accounting and tax rules, and often each agrees that the others interpretation is valid. I regularly see rulings from area specialists, and have to challenge them, only to be told, 'well in that case, you would be right' I sometimes ask an AI to comment, and usually their answer is couc…

This is the problem with the majority of AI push coming from devs. They look at something as complex as accounting and only think in terms of what they see on the surface and then say “oh that looks easy enough, there couldn’t possibly be more under the hood”.

Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper

#105

Post by jimnotgym »

ACCount37 wrote: post #58
ofjcihen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hahaha non-deterministic accounting probably won’t fly well with the IRS

Do you think human accountants are deterministic? Get a large enough org and watch your accounting grow an error margin.

Accountant here. It suprised me when I joined the field, but profit is calculated using a range of accounting estimates. Each accountant will make different decisions. Not least about which accounting period something belongs. Imagine a factory with freight inwards. It is month end and I have a sheaf of bills from various freight companies, but which ones are missing, not received yet? I can't wait, I have 2 days to report, so I make an estimate...now imagine that I have perhaps 100 such things. I may have to justify my estimates, but how should I estimate it? Same as last month? Perhaps I know there is a lot of shipments so I make it at the higher end.

Now I have a product failure at a major customer that I may have to send free replacements for. Should I recognise that cost now, or not? The accounting standards say if I know about it, and I can measure it and there is a high degree of certainty then I should. But the method of choosing is up to me. £10m or 1m cost, and this year or next... and I get to decide.

We bought a £6m dollar machine to be depreciated over time, but how long. The machine lasts 10 years, but will we still be using it then? Do I capitalise the internal R&D work as well?

All of which is audited, but the auditor often only has the information I give them.

Accounting is not deterministic, within certain bounds it is very subjective.

Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper

#106

Post by ofjcihen »

fragmede wrote: post #103
ofjcihen wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, because there’s no difference between a shifted decimal and entirely hallucinated credits and debits. This was my CPA wife’s response btw. The entire field is based on balance sheets and context that informs compliance. Let me put it this way: it’s such a bad idea that even Intuit doesn’t let their AI replace a human.

Why would Intuit be the barometer here? They're old technology. Pilot.com's got AI bookkeepers and they love them.

Man I hope so because they’re the ones selling them haha.

Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper

#107

Post by senordevnyc »

phildenhoff wrote: post #15

The company I work for, Digits, has been regularly updating our AI-vs-human bookkeeper benchmark. Look at page 8 -- many models are nearly as accurate as a human bookkeeper https://digits.com/downloads/beyond-the-hype-evaluating-llms...

I use Digits for my solo saas and it’s been great so far!

Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper

#108

Post by senordevnyc »

lowsong wrote: post #46

That "nearly" is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. It doesn't matter if your AI model is 99% or 99.99% accurate. For a tax return it has to be perfect every time or someone is at best getting a fine or at worst going to prison. Sure, human error happens too, but humans take accountability. That's why accountants are a regulated profession. Until an AI company CEO is willing to go prison if the output of their mode…

That "nearly" is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. It doesn't matter if your AI model is 99% or 99.99% accurate. For a tax return it has to be perfect every time or someone is at best getting a fine or at worst going to prison.

This is wildly out of touch with reality, at least in the US. The IRS barely audits anyone anymore, and if you make a mistake and they catch it, they often just correct it and send you a letter. You might pay a little in penalties, but it’s not that big of a deal. And I know literally dozens of small business owners who pretty blatantly dodge taxes in a hundred different ways and none of them have ever gotten so much as a slap on the wrist. And some of them have been audited!

Re: GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper

#109

Post by frereubu »

jimnotgym wrote: post #101
frereubu wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That made me laugh, thanks. I remember talking to my accountant in the UK a long time ago when I was newly self-employed, asking if I could pass something off as a business expense that was sort-of-related, but I knew probably not really OK. Her reply has stuck with me ever since: "HMRC [the UK equivalent of the IRS] are interested in matters of fact, not interpretation."

As an accountant at a large Corp, I can tell you that there are cases daily where two senior accountants argue over how to interpret accounting and tax rules, and often each agrees that the others interpretation is valid. I regularly see rulings from area specialists, and have to challenge them, only to be told, 'well in that case, you would be right' I sometimes ask an AI to comment, and usually their answer is couc…

Yeah, my query was an open-and-shut case, I know there are grey areas too. The Arctic Systems case in the UK was an interesting one for IT contractors.
Post reply on HN