Replacing a SQL analyst with 26 recursive GPT prompts
Anyone who's been asked more than a couple of times for data that requires a non-trivial bit of ad-hoc SQL will know the sinking "oh shit" feeling that comes when you subsequently realise you borked the query logic in some subtle way and have accordingly emailed out a completely bogus answer/report.From the article it doesn't seem that GPT is significantly better or worse than a human in this regard, although an experienced analyst would over time decrease their number of such errors.The best fix imo is to slather a battery of views over your data to minimise the risk of getting the joins wrong, and it'd be interesting to see how that approach could improve the bot's quality.