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.

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.

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.