When is a general-purpose LLM more than enough?

In short.
Should consumer generative AI be banned from the company? No, and it should be said honestly: for a draft, a rewording, an internal summary, preparing a meeting or a first pass at a subject, a general-purpose LLM is excellent, immediate and inexpensive. The dividing line is not the size of the document but its scope: as soon as a text commits the company to a customer, an auditor or a regulator, you move into a different category of tool.

The cases where the LLM is the right choice, without reservation

Rewording a paragraph in a more direct tone; summarising meeting minutes; producing a first outline of a technical proposal that experts will rewrite; translating an informal exchange; practising answers to objections; exploring a subject before going to look for sources. In all these cases, any error is without consequence: the text stays internal and will be reworked.

The three tipping-point criteria

Commitment: will the document be signed, submitted, legally binding? Evidence: must every claim be sourced and verifiable? Collective work: must several people approve it, with a record of who approved what? A single “yes” is enough to take you outside the remit of the general-purpose LLM. A three-page request for information with no commitment can go through it; a 150-page file that will end up as a contract appendix cannot. This clear-sightedness is also good governance practice: rather than banning, define the boundary and properly equip the other side.

The Optivalue.ai approach

Optivalue.ai starts precisely where the assistant stops: at the moment the document commits you and every claim must be proven, traced and approved.

Should general-purpose LLMs be banned in the company?
No: define a clear policy on permitted uses and provide a properly equipped alternative for sensitive documents.

‍Can a small file go through an LLM?
If it does not commit the company and does not require evidence, yes.