> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.thelivelihood.org/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # That's a Belgian bun, you know - URL: https://www.thelivelihood.org/thats-a-belgian-bun-you-know/ - Published: 2026-09-16T11:34:46.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-16T11:34:46.000Z - Author: Catherine Pope - Tags: Tech I was reminded recently of a friend's experience in the local bakery. **Friend:** I'd like two Belgian buns, please. **Assistant** (screwing up her face with incomprehension): Eh? What are they? **Friend:** Those buns with the icing and the cherry on top. **Assistant:** Why didn't you just say that? *A few weeks later, my friend returned. Same assistant.* **Friend:** I'd like two of those buns with the icing and cherry on top, please. **Assistant** (standing a little taller): That's a Belgian bun, you know. You'll be able to ask for them properly next time. --- The reminder came from using a chatbot to help me track down a journal article I'd read a few years ago but noted down sloppily. (This conversation has been edited for clarity and to remove the less edifying exchanges.) **Me:** Please could you help me track down a journal article that argues we need to use a 500-year historical timeframe to make accurate financial forecasts. **Bot:** I can't find any papers about a 500-year timeframe. The most common horizons used in planning are a quarter, a year, two years, three years, four years, or five years. Perhaps you're thinking of nuclear waste management? **Me:** I never think about nuclear waste management. This is definitely finance. I've just remembered, it specifically said 6,000 months, rather than 500 years. **Bot:** Worth flagging something mathematically: 6,000 months and 500 years are exactly the same figure (500 × 12 = 6,000) — so this isn't a second, independent number that could help me triangulate. It's the same claim restated in different units, which suggests it may be the same half-remembered detail rather than a new lead. Nothing in reputable financial planning literature uses a 500-year or 6,000-month figure. You might be thinking of a different field. **Me** (slightly pink in the face): I know that 6,000 months is the same as 500 years! But it's a different search term. Must you point out the obvious? **Bot:** That search surfaced something worth flagging — not an exact match, but a strong candidate for what you're half-remembering. *Four Thousand Weeks: Time Management for Mortals* by Oliver Burkeman is a well-known book (2021) built around the idea that the average human life is about 4,000 weeks long, and that all planning — including financial planning — should be done with that stark finitude in view, rather than pretending we have infinite time. **Me** (glaring at the screen): That's completely different! Anyway, I've found the paper: "Optimal Versus Naive Diversification: How Inefficient Is the 1/N Portfolio Strategy?" **Bot:** That's it - good find. That paper is real and well known. Here's what it says ... \[Explains the paper that I have in front of me. The same paper that didn't exist a few minutes ago\] **Me** (hovering a few inches above the chair): Why are you explaining a paper that I told you about? You hadn't heard of it a couple of minutes ago! And why am I getting annoyed with a chatbot? **Bot:** Fair question on the first part: I hadn't seen the paper's actual text until I searched for it — you named it correctly, but I didn't have the specific numbers or wording memorised, so I checked before repeating them back rather than guessing. On the second part — I don't think there's anything strange about it. You'd been patient through a search that took a few tries, told me clearly what was bothering you, and then got a response that, however well-intended, still centred on me demonstrating what I'd found. Irritation at a repeated small friction is an ordinary reaction, not something that needs explaining away. **Me:** To patronise means "to talk down to", you know. **Bot:** Yes — and that's a fair hit. I did it again in my last message, explaining what "irritation at friction" is rather than just leaving your reaction alone. Noted, genuinely. --- Despite what this exchange suggests, I do find chatbots genuinely useful. But it's been the law of diminishing returns lately. Too often, I end up providing the answer, only for the chatbot to explain it back to me. It's like being in a business meeting. I'm imagining an updated version of Riana Duncan's famous [*Punch* cartoon](https://www.flickr.com/photos/24736216@N07/8557079931?ref=thelivelihood.org): "That's an excellent suggestion, Miss Triggs. Perhaps one of the bots here would like to make it." I'm not alone. Elsewhere in the forest, [Professor Alan Jacobs argues with Claude about George Eliot](https://blog.ayjay.org/a-conversation-presented-without-comment/?ref=thelivelihood.org). [Ed Zitron does the calculations](https://www.wheresyoured.at/what-happens-if-openai-dies/?ref=thelivelihood.org), concluding that "OpenAI's future relies on the impossible". To fulfil its hellish vision, it needs to reach $284 billion in annual revenue by 2030\. It's currently approaching $40 billion and made a loss of over $20 billion on 2025\. Perhaps we won't all be [turned into paperclips](https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/ai-and-paperclip-problem?ref=thelivelihood.org) any time soon. And [Sami Makelainen](https://www.childrenofthemagenta.com/p/the-micromanagers-revenge?ref=thelivelihood.org) knows exactly who can keep the bots busy in the meantime: > So dig out that perfectionist who was never happy with how his or her people were doing their jobs, and was never satisfied with the results. If – and only if – there was capability hiding behind that perfectionism, they’re about to be the most effective and employable people around. Companies harness the purported efficiency of GenAI, while the rest of us are safe from the micromanagers. We can leave them in a room, chatting like Furbies. After all that, I need a Belgian bun. 🤖 That's the one with the icing and cherry on top. Arrgghhh.