> What you need is your legal team to tell you how risky it is, and management to decide how risk averse they want to be. No. 1. Even if you're not going to

> What you need is your legal team to tell you how risky it is, and management to decide how risk averse they want to be. No. 1. Even if you're not going to do any mitigation, you do need engineers and researchers to help do the risk analysis. It's a collaborative process; rarely can a lawyer provide a full risk analysis without asking questions of eng/research, and sometimes answering those questions requires doing novel R&D and/or non-trivial engineering work 2. What happens when the lawyers say "very risky" and management isn't willing to take that risk but also doesn't want to "sit out"? In that case, technical folks are needed who can help mitigate risks. Constraining and aligning the output of these models is non-trivial and in many cases remains a completely open research problem. And that's only the legal risk. As my comment pointed out, there are also functional requirements. Consider a chip maker fabricating a new chip: eliminating bugs in the architecture demands hardware V&V, regardless of what legal determines about liability, because the chip doing what you want it to do is a core product functionality. Similar for most applications of text generation models (image less so, for now, but any integration with the real economy will introduce the same sort of core product functionality requirements).