←back to thread

55 points bmadduma | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.359s | source

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.

Show context
aristofun ◴[] No.46240509[source]
It is already quite automated to my knowledge.

And it is a very poor fit for moderm LLM based AI. Because accuracy. No mistakes or hallucinations allowed.

replies(1): >>46242843 #
mierz00 ◴[] No.46242843[source]
I disagree on this, there are plenty of problems in accounting that an LLM can help with.

I’ve built some software[0] that analyses general ledgers and uses LLMs to call out any compliance issues by looking at transaction and account descriptions.

Is it perfect, nope. But it’s a hell of a lot better than sifting through thousands of transactions manually which accountants do and get wrong all the time.

[0] - https://ledgeroptic.com

replies(2): >>46243740 #>>46269647 #
krapp ◴[] No.46243740[source]
> But it’s a hell of a lot better than sifting through thousands of transactions manually which accountants do and get wrong all the time.

I still wonder why humans getting things wrong is a problem, but LLMs getting more things more wrong more often than humans never is. At the very least you'll need a human accountant around to verify the LLM. Or I guess you could just practice "vibe accountancy" and hope things work out but that seems like a worse idea than a trained human professional. But I'm probably just a Luddite.

Also, I am admittedly not an accountant, but I don't think they manually sift through every transaction to verify compliance issues in every single case. That probably isn't how that works.

replies(2): >>46245121 #>>46249028 #
1. mierz00 ◴[] No.46249028[source]
To be clear, I agree with you.

Our target market is accountants. I want to help them not replace them.

In the same way security audit tools aren’t replacing professionals, but that can help on initial scan.