This isn't the first time this has happened, either. I do not understand how these consultancies - who sell these "reports" for six or seven digit sums - continue to mess this up. It should be excruciatingly embarrassing for them.

I guess nobody ever got fired for paying KPMG and friends for an expensive report that supported their priors.

▲

tjwebbnorfolk 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

These six-figure reports are produced by underpaid kids in their twenties working 18 hours a day.

The purpose of paying for these reports is for executives to have someone else to blame when their idea doesn't work. It has nothing to do with the correctness of the content.

▲

overfeed 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> These six-figure reports are produced by underpaid kids in their twenties working 18 hours a day.

That's accurate, for the first draft. Similar to big legal firms - subsequent versions are signed-off and passed up (and if revisions request, down) the hierarchy, each stratum with its own billing rate(s).

Which makes me wonder when the hallucinations got added.

	▲	tjwebbnorfolk 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not where I used to work. Any "sign off" was some director making sure the letterhead looked right.

▲

esseph 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is absolutely correct in my experience. It's solely finger pointing insurance.

▲

SpicyLemonZest 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The problem is that there's a lot of people running around who believe the polite fictions we tell ourselves about review processes. It's very hard to explain why it doesn't work to have someone manually clean up a sloppy AI draft without discussing the fact, which many people find unacceptable, that manual review can't catch all errors.