3 ms·

YES. This is exactly the point. The institution using the LLM is exactly as responsible for it's actions as when they hire a sales/support rep. If either goe

by toss1 3y ago

YES. This is exactly the point. The institution using the LLM is exactly as responsible for it's actions as when they hire a sales/support rep. If either goes 'off the ranch', the company faces the consequences. and if they are smart, will take corrective action so that the good off-the-ranch excursions are encouraged and the bad excursions prevented. If they don't, they may go out of business. And yes, just as if a rogue salesperson who can't or won't improve gets fired, they can shirtcan the LLM. (The only difference might be some recourse against the provider of the LLM, depending on their contract)

Havoc 3y ago
>If either goes 'off the ranch', the company faces the consequences. Does it though? Like if a crazy salesperson promises to deliver a million lambos for $1 is your expectation that this is binding and lamborghini goes out of businesses?
- spywaregorilla 3y ago
  The burden of proving apparent authority and reasonable consideration grows tougher as deals get larger and more professionally between merchants. Deals between merchants also have different assumptions about how contracts get broken.
- toss1 3y ago
  I doubt it plays out as simply as you describe, and there's a million ways it can play out depending on jurisdiction, etc. Likely, someone signs contract, comes to collect, Lambo says "Nonsense!", buyer says, "It's Binding!", and then the mess starts. If everyone's sensible, they come to a reasonable agreement. If not, it's "see you in court!", and everyone incurs costs of a trial, and the judge & jury impose a reasonable settlement (values of "reasonable" can be quite a wide range and often surprising). Lambo also likely sues and/or prosecutes the rogue salesperson to recover some token amount and mostly to make an example so no idiot tries that again. The result is a costly mess for everyone, likely preventing it from repeating (e.g., Lambo puts in more checks & balances), and life goes on. So, yes, consequences, not trivial consequences, and we hope enough that corrective action is taken. Just what we'd want done for LLMs also.

by toss1 3y ago

Havoc 3y ago

>If either goes 'off the ranch', the company faces the consequences. Does it though? Like if a crazy salesperson promises to deliver a million lambos for $1 is your expectation that this is binding and lamborghini goes out of businesses?

spywaregorilla 3y ago
The burden of proving apparent authority and reasonable consideration grows tougher as deals get larger and more professionally between merchants. Deals between merchants also have different assumptions about how contracts get broken.
toss1 3y ago
I doubt it plays out as simply as you describe, and there's a million ways it can play out depending on jurisdiction, etc. Likely, someone signs contract, comes to collect, Lambo says "Nonsense!", buyer says, "It's Binding!", and then the mess starts. If everyone's sensible, they come to a reasonable agreement. If not, it's "see you in court!", and everyone incurs costs of a trial, and the judge & jury impose a reasonable settlement (values of "reasonable" can be quite a wide range and often surprising). Lambo also likely sues and/or prosecutes the rogue salesperson to recover some token amount and mostly to make an example so no idiot tries that again. The result is a costly mess for everyone, likely preventing it from repeating (e.g., Lambo puts in more checks & balances), and life goes on. So, yes, consequences, not trivial consequences, and we hope enough that corrective action is taken. Just what we'd want done for LLMs also.