←back to thread

Tell HN: AI coding is sexy, but accounting is the real low-hanging target

56 points bmadduma | 6 comments | 11 Dec 25 22:43 UTC | HN request time: 0.72s | source | bottom

Working on automating small business finance (bookkeeping, reconciliation, basic reporting).

One thing I keep noticing: compared to programming, accounting often looks like the more automatable problem:

It’s rule-based Double entry, charts of accounts, tax rules, materiality thresholds. For most day-to-day transactions you’re not inventing new logic, you’re applying existing rules.

It’s verifiable The books either balance or they don’t. Ledgers either reconcile or they don’t. There’s almost always a “ground truth” to compare against (bank feeds, statements, prior periods).

It’s boring and repetitive Same vendors, same categories, same patterns every month. Humans hate this work. Software loves it.

With accounting, at least at the small-business level, most of the work feels like:

normalize data from banks / cards / invoices

apply deterministic or configurable rules

surface exceptions for human review

run consistency checks and reports

The truly hard parts (tax strategy, edge cases, messy history, talking to authorities) are a smaller fraction of the total hours but require humans. The grind is in the repetitive, rule-based stuff.

1. Acct-Man ◴[12 Dec 25 02:52 UTC] No.46240344[source]▶
I’m an accountant (CPA, CMA, Big 4), and while there’s some truth in what you’re saying, you’re significantly underestimating the complexity of applying GAAP, or even tax law. What you’re describing is really bookkeeping, not accounting, and there are plenty of tools that already automate that.

There’s a lot of subjectivity in how GAAP is applied and interpreted - creating accruals, deciding when revenue should be recorded, blah blah.

replies(2): >>46251014 #>>46293686 #
2. nrhrjrjrjtntbt ◴[13 Dec 25 01:14 UTC] No.46251014[source]▶
There is a big gap between bookkeeping and GAAP. E.g. your typical middle class with business expenses and some rental properties in different states.
3. clarle ◴[16 Dec 25 20:05 UTC] No.46293686[source]▶
Isn't that the benefit of LLM-powered accounting over existing rules-based software?

LLMs can help to handle the subjectivity in how GAAP is applied and provide justifications, which previous rules-based tax software could not before.

replies(3): >>46293722 #>>46293977 #>>46294025 #
4. fnordpiglet ◴[16 Dec 25 20:09 UTC] No.46293722[source]▶
Yeah exactly. This is where an LLM could really shine. The trick though is consistency and that it’s often more on the basis of how the organization typically treats something and rationale to its applicability to GAAP. The creation and consistent adherence to internal standards and providing them and proving them to auditors is the key and LLMs would need infra to accomplish this.
5. habinero ◴[16 Dec 25 20:29 UTC] No.46293977[source]▶
No, absolutely the opposite. LLMs are terrible at things that require judgment and justifications, because they don't reason. They come up with something that sounds plausible.

That's not good enough when you're dealing with matters that can lead to civil or even criminal liability. Errors can be incredibly expensive to fix, if they can be fixed at all.

With a CPA or attorney, you at least have recourse if they screw up. You don't with LLMs.

6. HillRat ◴[16 Dec 25 20:33 UTC] No.46294025[source]▶
You have the same problem that you have with legal LLMs; an LLM is incapable of providing legal or regulatory-involved advice, and anyone using an LLM for such purposes (even leaving aside hallucinations) forfeits any justifiable reliance defense. There's a role for LLMs, but no one with legal responsibility over reporting could or would possibly rely on an LLM for complex regulatory and rules analysis, not when there's the risk of your wardrobe being replaced with orange jumpsuits.