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

Deloitte to refund the Australian government after using AI in $440k report

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 240 posts

Re: Deloitte to refund the Australian government after using AI in $440k report

#71

Post by Gigachad »

DrScientist wrote: post #62
DrScientist wrote: post #59

While we are on the topic of listing problems with consultants/outsourcing - another potential problem is the A team/ B team switch. During initial engagement you are often talking to somebody who appears to actually know their stuff - you hire them and find that this knowledgable person has moved on to the next big sales, and you've got the B or C team.

To balance that with a positive comment - one of the reasons for going with a consultant/outsourcing is if you have a big one/off type project that you can't resource internally with perms. So the choice is trying to hire a bunch of individual contractors and forge them into a team, or hire a pre-built team for a period of time [1] [1] Sometimes it's sold as a re-built team - but in reality it might be hired in exact…

I just don’t see how this happens for government work though. Surely they have enough year round work to hire people in house for it.

Re: Deloitte to refund the Australian government after using AI in $440k report

#72

Post by breakingcups »

emil-lp wrote: post #14

> “The updates made in no way impact or affect the substantive content, findings and recommendations in the report,” it stated in the amended version. Well, then ...

It then continued: "I'm sorry, but as an AI language model..."

Re: Deloitte to refund the Australian government after using AI in $440k report

#73

Post by coffeebeqn »

jack_riminton wrote: post #39

As someone who did an MBA and was groomed to be a Consultant and then repented (now a software engineer) you have to understand that the customer of a consultancy project is an exec. 1. The exec has been charged with exploring a new product space, a potential M&A deal, more vertical integration etc etc 2. The exec needs a gauge on the "size of the prize", is this thing worth doing? roughly how will it be done? how lo…

Tell them what they want to hear with some light research. Now this sounds like an AI disruption waiting to happen

Re: Deloitte to refund the Australian government after using AI in $440k report

#74

Post by tjpnz »

ultim8k wrote: post #27

Most of the time gov, orgs and companies don't listen to their in-house engineers but will pay $$$ to some consulting firm, only to confirm the same thing or just to show that "they are taking actions towards the solution". In some cases there is distrust from management on in-house employees or in some other cases they want to show quick results without distracting their teams from their planned tasks. Of course the…

Rich people helping out other rich people.

Re: Deloitte to refund the Australian government after using AI in $440k report

#75

Post by jack_riminton »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #73
jack_riminton wrote: post #39

As someone who did an MBA and was groomed to be a Consultant and then repented (now a software engineer) you have to understand that the customer of a consultancy project is an exec. 1. The exec has been charged with exploring a new product space, a potential M&A deal, more vertical integration etc etc 2. The exec needs a gauge on the "size of the prize", is this thing worth doing? roughly how will it be done? how lo…

Tell them what they want to hear with some light research. Now this sounds like an AI disruption waiting to happen

Yeah but it's missing the credentials

Hey this report was done by McKinsey and they hire from Harvard and Stanford, and hear how well they speak and look how soft their hair is, the report must be good!

Re: Deloitte to refund the Australian government after using AI in $440k report

#76

Post by codebje »

Gigachad wrote: post #71
DrScientist wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To balance that with a positive comment - one of the reasons for going with a consultant/outsourcing is if you have a big one/off type project that you can't resource internally with perms. So the choice is trying to hire a bunch of individual contractors and forge them into a team, or hire a pre-built team for a period of time [1] [1] Sometimes it's sold as a re-built team - but in reality it might be hired in exact…

I just don’t see how this happens for government work though. Surely they have enough year round work to hire people in house for it.

The Australian federal government goes through waves of "reducing the size of the public service" by firing and/or capping full-time hires, but the work's still there to be done so contractors get the gig.

Re: Deloitte to refund the Australian government after using AI in $440k report

#77

Post by alexdoesstuff »

This is primarily a story of a failure to supervise the creation of the report, rather than anything related to AI.

The role of the outsourced consultancy in such a project is to make sure the findings withstand public scrutiny. They clearly failed on this. It's quite shocking that the only consequence is a partial refund rather than a review of any current and future engagements with the consultancy due to poor performance.

There shouldn't be a meaningful difference if the error in the report is minor or consequential for the finding, or if it is introduced by poorly used AI or a caffeinated up consultant in a late-night session.

Re: Deloitte to refund the Australian government after using AI in $440k report

#78

Post by atmosx »

Gigachad wrote: post #71
DrScientist wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To balance that with a positive comment - one of the reasons for going with a consultant/outsourcing is if you have a big one/off type project that you can't resource internally with perms. So the choice is trying to hire a bunch of individual contractors and forge them into a team, or hire a pre-built team for a period of time [1] [1] Sometimes it's sold as a re-built team - but in reality it might be hired in exact…

I just don’t see how this happens for government work though. Surely they have enough year round work to hire people in house for it.

At the government level, it’s mostly driven by ideology. I never came across a situation where a service improved after being "liberalized". Never. Not once. It is always end up in a combo of: poorer quality and (much) higher cost.

I’ve seen too many cases where people suffer the consequences of their own ideas being implemented (large or lower scale), convinced that if we just turn this knob a little more, it’ll finally work. Because of that, I don’t spend much energy on them anymore.

Re: Deloitte to refund the Australian government after using AI in $440k report

#79

Post by rolisz »

Intermernet wrote: post #61
protocolture wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be surprised how many companies dont have the expertise in house. And of that set, you would be surprised how many make financial and technical decisions based on no expertise and get themselves into all sorts of trouble. You may also be surprised how many companies have 1 guy in house who pretends to be an expert and does his damned best to prevent people getting hired who might out them. Good consultants…

The thing is, the original problem is one that "the free market" would say should fail. That company, without the expertise required to do the job, should fail. Having consultants do anything in this situation is antithetical to the ideal of a company. The company should fail, OR, the consultants should advise that the company should either fail or gain the expertise to no longer require consultants. Obviously this i…

If they need the expertise only once every ten years? Then it makes no sense to have in house expertise. Or the company expands to a new market and they need new expertise. They can hire, but they don't know who to hire, so consultants come in to help them.

So there's some free market reasons for this to exist.

Re: Deloitte to refund the Australian government after using AI in $440k report

#80

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

codebje wrote: post #76
Gigachad wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don’t see how this happens for government work though. Surely they have enough year round work to hire people in house for it.

The Australian federal government goes through waves of "reducing the size of the public service" by firing and/or capping full-time hires, but the work's still there to be done so contractors get the gig.

This is the thing. Its much less expensive to have these sorts of knowledge employees on government staff who just do this sort of work all the time, but governments prefer to spend more (much much more) on contractors. I suspect its partly because they are always wanting to announce down-sizing initiatives to appease the right, but I think more cynically, its because contractors will more reliably give them the 'right answer' than career civil servants and there's also the potential for kickbacks. Some of those profits paid to contractor companies might find their way back into campaign contributions.
Post reply on HN