I hope you get better management that actually understands how much data one person can process.

Cynically, management doesn't care if we read or understand the material, only that we click a button that documents (records) that we have "been trained on it" and acknowledge that.

In reality, after decades of exposure to the same basic concepts, most people who are "trained" on this material do know - vaguely - what's in the documents, and the real function of the training is to remind you that the procedures are there and when they are applicable to what you are doing (rarely, in my job function) then you should pull the official, current, procedure from the official document repository and reference that as a work instruction while you do what it applies to. Part of why the procedures are in such bad shape is that people rarely do exercise them like that, so flaws remain un-noticed for long stretches of time.

I hope that one day, the world can openly accept that people are not perfect executors of written, spoken, or graven in stone instructions and that that is O.K. and we can still do a good job with our flaws. Some of the procedural safeguards are implicitly acknowledging that without coming right out and acknowledging that. I suspect that day will come after I retire, if ever, and I may work for another 30 years.

Human life is more valuable than money, property... but suicide is a reality of the human condition. It's not something that has been meaningfully improved with modern psychology or medications. It's worse among the poor but significantly prevalent across the wealth spectrum. Anything that interacts with people is going to interact with suicidal people.

Next time you are in a train station, count 100 people as they pass you - same effect. If you're in a major station, look out across the big hall full of people, estimate how many hundreds of people you are looking at, and take in the reality of what 1 in 100 actually means.

you’re acting like the solution here is LLMs

No, you're imagining that's what I wrote. LLMs are a tool, not a solution. A helpful tool, very helpful in some situations. The real problem that people and LLMs struggle with is: what should we be doing in the first place? LLMs don't solve that, they do accelerate the making of a software thing when you know what you want that software thing to be. They also accelerating the finding of flaws during the process, enabling cleaning those flaws out faster.

just masking the problem and allowing the millionaires at the top to keep making tons of money.

That's not a problem for tools to solve, that's a societal problem that goes back to - at least - the start of agriculture.

Were the lines that were incorrect causing issues?

Mostly not because mostly people gloss over the text and say "yeah, yeah, I know what you're getting at" and do what they think the page says instead of doing what the page actually says.

The LLM didn’t solve a problem, it created a new one!

If you have a road with mis-painted stripes, but it never causes a problem because everybody ignores the stripes anyway... yeah, in that sense fixing the stripes is un-necessary work...

Your company that won’t pay a human to review the document in the first place is now needing more humans to clean up a mess that wasn’t a problem in the first place.

Oh, the company pays plenty of people to create and review the documents. They have metrics for how many documents they review per quarter, and they do review those documents, and they do find these things, and other people are paid to revise the documents again with metrics for their performance, and we all get trained on the revisions as they come out - at a remarkably regular pace when you look across a scale of tens of years - and that training accounts for about 5% of my weekly chargeable time accounting.

The difference is: the LLMs are finding problems faster, all at once, and the "continuous improvement process" is a little bewildered about what to do with all these, valid, observations coming out so much faster than they used to. We're just starting to think about how to come to terms with that, and in the meantime the process rolls on revising documents at about the same pace as always, because if we fixed them all at once it would put a kink in the system, like a python swallowing a buffalo.