Re:Replacing a SQL analyst with 26 recursive GPT prompts
by adrianN on Wednesday January 25, 2023 @01:28PM
(#34522188)
The correct move seems to be to replace the team with a set of oracle bones. From the very limited information we have it seems to me like the team was used to justify whatever conclusions were already made before consulting them.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Replacing a SQL analyst with 26 recursive GPT prompts
by TeMPOraL on Wednesday January 25, 2023 @04:16PM
(#34524293)
The whole practice is kind of a proof-of-work scheme for credibility and liability laundering: even if you intend the team/company to follow your conclusions regardless of what anyone else thinks or says, getting some analysts or outside consultants to burn non-trivial amount of time and money evaluating the situation before rubber-stamping your proposal, is what may be necessary for you to sell your ideas to the rest of the team/company. Such exercise may be especially important if you want to protect yourself from having your head served on the platter after your hare-brained idea fails spectacularly.