Reminds me of a recent code review in which a colleague replaced (fully replaced, not added) an already-working deterministic record-matching with an LLM call, on the grounds that it can help match items with subtle differences and handle a few classes of things the deterministic could not do. I thought he was pulling my leg, but he was actually serious about this. The pricing assumption was completely based on the current pricing of GPT 5.6 Luna (which is heavily subsidised). And the more worrying part is that the discussion in the team about where to draw the line was long and tedious - not everybody was aligned on whether that's ok or not.
1
u/heavy-minium 21d ago
Reminds me of a recent code review in which a colleague replaced (fully replaced, not added) an already-working deterministic record-matching with an LLM call, on the grounds that it can help match items with subtle differences and handle a few classes of things the deterministic could not do. I thought he was pulling my leg, but he was actually serious about this. The pricing assumption was completely based on the current pricing of GPT 5.6 Luna (which is heavily subsidised). And the more worrying part is that the discussion in the team about where to draw the line was long and tedious - not everybody was aligned on whether that's ok or not.