←back to thread

56 points bmadduma | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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
Acct-Man ◴[] 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 #
clarle ◴[] 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 #
1. HillRat ◴[] 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.