3 ms·
I think it'll fall on some "would a reasonable person believe this" test. Like if you ask an official company chatbot a question and it blatantly lies to you,
by ado__dev 3y ago
I think it'll fall on some "would a reasonable person believe this" test.
Like if you ask an official company chatbot a question and it blatantly lies to you, I'd say you have some recourse. Like for example you ask about the return policy and bot says 30 days, when it's actually 15.
Versus looking at the chatlog and seeing the customer tell the chatbot to repeat to them that the company is going to give them $10,000, and then suing said company to get the $10k.
- everforward 3y agoI don't doubt something like that will come along, but I don't think it will help. There will be more subtle ways to get the answer. Ask for a refund, ask if that's the highest refunded they can give, ask if that's really the highest it can go, etc. Once someone finds a way to trigger a response like that, it will spread like wildfire on the internet. I fundamentally don't think it's a good idea to make an LLM an agent of the company. They lack logical reasoning skills necessary to determine whether actions are a good idea or not.
- spywaregorilla 3y agoPersonally I think the bar will be very high. If you have a bot that is explicitly there to sell you something, you can probably demand that any sale it makes of that thing is legally binding even if you're obviously gaming it because the bot does have authority to negotiate a deal. It's not supposed to sell it for 90% off. But you'd have a very tough time arguing it lacks the apparent authority to do so. The 10k example is erroneous by other basic case law. There's no consideration on your end, so it's not a binding agreement. Nor does that sales rep bot likely have authority to be purchasing things from you (of course, that could change based on context).