You are spot on. Right now it's just a messy backend data dump. I left it like that to focus on debugging, routing, and giving SEO crawlers something to chew, but it's a mess for the human eye.
As someone building these systems, you know how noisy the raw outputs get. My next step is to clean up the views and hide the slop behind a toggle. Appreciate the reality check.
May be a great compliment if someone does try, haha. But seriously, the real value isn't in the text since it is very specific to my firm and work experience, the value is the underlying design logic and the specific 'if-then' professional constrains baked into the system. Plus, the audit logs are part of a 'transparency' experiment, if it helps someone else build a better tool for the industry, Im all for it!
haha, good catch! I focused on the AEC logic but did not put enough on the general guardrails. Your vancouver and Pi questions, including someone else on marine vessels seemed to have slipped thru. Got questions about refining Uranium and stuff, I'll be tightening the system prompt to manage this. Appreciate the stress test!
haha, I might have let the Agent Experience persona get to dramatic here... its definitely feeling the oats today. I'll dial it back on my next refinement. Thanks!
Checking right now. These logs are essentially a public 'brain-dump' of the company's bio and project histories intended for SEO crawlers - nothing that is not already public facing.
that said, I hear the concern. I am going to review and tighten access just to be safe. Appreciate the heads-upp on how it looks from the outside.
at the bottom of your list, you have a number of bio links that I presume are you and your employees, but it's not clear that they are intended to be public from first glance.
Good catch. Those bios and lists are essentially grounding truth for the training data for the RAG. Intent is twofold:
Give bot truth anchors to stay focused and manage hallucination.
Brain-dump for SEO crawlers to index our expertise. Removing the fluff from our site didn't agree with the 1999 SEO tech. I'm going to tighten the access and formatting so it doesn't look like an accidental exposure to a casual observer. Appreciate the sharp eye!
Good point. To clarify, it wasn't sensitive PII (no private contacts, addresses, etc.). It was just our public team bios and professional resumes.
Because we deleted our traditional 'About Us' page, Google's webcrawler are unable to interact with our AI bot. It's a problem of visibility on Google Search, the logs are our workaround if that makes sense. I left that text exposed in the backend so standard search engines (like Google) could still index who we are and what our qualifications are.
But you are 100% right that seeing it raw in the logs looks sketchy to a user. Thanks for keeping me honest here.
You caught me. Tina is my co-founder, so those are her business contacts, but you're absolutely right, still a dumb move to leave them exposed instead of routing everything through single secure point of contact. I completely missed them when I dumped our raw resumes into the RAG context.
My oversight for blindly claiming the logs were totally clean. I just updated the backend and permanently scrubbed the contacts.
Genuinely appreciate you pushing back and catching my blind spot!
Thanks, appreciate the Perspective from an AEC pro. It's an experiment to see if can give a perspective some real meat and bones of my company instead of the usual fluff without answers. I hope it works....
Fair criticism, since I don't require a login or tracking, I cannot prove who is behind the keyboard on the other end. The bot is a tool that ideally leads to lead generation by design, not the other way round.
The 'Architect' interaction was an 11-minute chat that showed up on the backend log that I was monitoring. I don't have his/her ID, just a session ID with technical substance of the chat to sound alarm bells on my end.
Respectfully, it's OK if find the tool lacking. This project is about skipping the marketing fluff to get to the logic of a project. If it doesn't weork for your workflow, that's fair critique.
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and tried to find some more info on building out a sub $1.5mm property in SoCal (feel free to pull/repost the logs). I'll admit that I did get some value out of the responses but it basically boiled down to {response from LLM based on "aggressive" sales prompt}{casual mention of mildly-related "deployment"}{push to contact form}.
I work on the demand-side of marketing so I understand the frustrations of lead-gen but this didn't really seem to add any value beyond what ChatGPT et al would give you. Why should I give you my contact info?
To answer your question, the contact info is for when the LLM reaches the end of its logic. I'm a 2-person firm, cannot compete with ChatGPT on general knowledge, but I'm also intentionally 'crippling' the bot's autonomy for liability reasons.
It is designed to move the user toward a human once/if the technical complexity gets high, so it doesn't accidentally misrepresent a code or site issue, that could get us into legal trouble.
It is a balancing act between utility and risk, still tuning where that line sits based on the stress test today , if that makes sense?
I hear you both. Definitely got some scar tissues after 30yrs in the trenches. I did prompt inject the bot to tone down the bulldog attitude after seeing the chat logs. Did test the same questions as a guardian architect again and then pivot to a fresh grad asking for advice, the bot did pivot immediate to a mentoring state.
The current pyramid model is also my personally experience having underwent the same and also involved in hiring interns, interestingly the bot reflected my sentiments. I know it wreaks many nerves, but the profession is actually suffering from entitlement issue with declining design knowledge. But this is just a debate on a different platform.
'Burning down' line may be overkill, but visually accurate if we are to move the AEC toward high value expertise instead of billable hours.
I feel you, I really do. I’ve worked with architects. Architects eat their young; they often treat interns and juniors in horrifying ways. Good on you for trying to find a better way.
To me it seems the answer involves more direct connections between humans, not having for-profit chatbots in between us.
I agree, but its a balancing act. We are 2 person firm juggling our experience with limited resources. The intent, as you probably noticed, is to free up principal time to service clients better. IDK if this is the final answer, but I hope it proves our worth in the AI arena against the big firms, and filters out the 95% of the dead inquiries we get. Time will tell me this works.
> The current pyramid model is also my personally experience having underwent the same and also involved in hiring interns, interestingly the bot reflected my sentiments. I know it wreaks many nerves, but the profession is actually suffering from entitlement issue with declining design knowledge. But this is just a debate on a different platform.
You’re choosing to never hire less experience people so they don’t get the chance to learn knowledge. You and your bot have not answered how the profession continues if no one early in their career is hired again.
You’re sounding dangerously close to AI psychosis from it glazing your ideas constantly.
As someone building these systems, you know how noisy the raw outputs get. My next step is to clean up the views and hide the slop behind a toggle. Appreciate the reality check.
reply