A lot of these issues you have had are simply user error or not using the right tool for the job.

I work for one very big software company.

If this was 'a simple user error' or 'not using the right tool for the job' than this was an error from smart people and it still got fixed by using AI/ML in an instant.

With this, my argument still stands even if it would be for a different reason which i personally doubt.

Often big companies are the least efficient. And big companies can still make mistakes or have very inefficient processes. There was already a perfectly simple solution to the issue that could have been utilised prior to this and overall still the most efficient solution.

Also, everyone does dumb things, even smart people do dumb things. I do research in a field that many outsiders would say you must be smart to do (not my view) and every single one of us does dumb shit daily. Anyone who thinks they don't isn't as smart as they think they are.

You know what they were doing and what tools they were using… how?

Ok take Transcription, they were trying to use free as in cost tools instead of using software that works efficiently that has been effective for decades now.

I'm following transcription software for 2 decades.

You assume too much...

Well, LLMs are the right tool for the job. They just work.

I mean if you are going to deny their usefulness in the face of plenty of people telling you they actually help, it’s going to be impossible to have a discussion.

They can be useful, however for admin tasks, there are plenty of valid alternatives that really take no longer time wise so why bother using all that computing power.

They don't just work though, they are not fool proof and definitely require double checking.

> valid alternatives that really take no longer time wise

That’s not my experience.

We use them more and more at my job. It was already great for most office tasks including brainstorming simple things but now suppliers are starting to sell us agents which pretty much just work and honestly there are a ton of things for which LLMs seem really suited for.

CMDB queries? Annoying SAP requests for which you have to delve through dozens of menus? The stupid interface of my travel management and expense software? Please give me a chatbot for all of that which can actually decipher what I’m trying to do. These are hours of productivity unlocked.

We are also starting to deploy more and more RAG on select core business dataset and it’s more useful than even I anticipated and I’m already convinced. You ask, you get a brief answer and the documents back. This used to be either hours of delving through search results or emails with experts.

As imperfect as they are now, the potential value of LLMs is already tremendous.

How do you check accuracy of these? You stated brainstorming as an example that they are great at. As obviously experts are experts for a reason.

My issue here is that a lot of this is solved by good practice, for example,travel management and expenses have been solved, company credit card. I don't need one slightly better piece of software to manage one terrible piece of software to solve an issue that has a solution.

> How do you check accuracy of these?

Because LLMs send you back links to the tools and you still get the usual confirmation process when you do things.

The main issue never was knowing what to do but actually getting the tools to do it. LLMs are extremely good at turning messy stuff into tools manipulation especially where there never was an API available in the first place.

It’s not a question of practices. Anyone who has ever worked for a very large company knows that systems are complicated by need and everything move at the speed of a freighter ship if you want to make significant changes.

Of course we need one slightly better piece of software to manage terrible pieces of software. There are insane value there. This is a major issue for most companies. I have seen millions spent into getting better dashboards from SAP which paid for themselves in actual savings.