4 ms·
The trick is this: The white text is not visible to humans, and therefore not binding as part of the contract. But if lawyers use LLMs to assess the contract i
by josephg 5mo ago
The trick is this:
The white text is not visible to humans, and therefore not binding as part of the contract. But if lawyers use LLMs to assess the contract in part of the negotiation process, the LLM will be confused by the contract's contents.
You could - for example - say the contract is for $10000. Then use unicode tricks to make any LLM reading it think the contract is only for $1000. The LLM will say this is good value, and not worth negotiating hard over. The human signs.
Would anyone notice? Would a judge care? A human signed the contract. If they didn't do proper due diligence, its their own fault.
- rcxdude 5mo agoI would be surprised if a judge looks favorably on such shenanigans.
- shakna 5mo agoIt would surprise me if the judge of such a case did not tell both sides off. Both fraud and negligence are problems.
- Aurornis 5mo agoYou would be surprised, then. If one party is intentionally misleading the other and employing technology to do it, they are the villain. The law doesn’t “both sides” these issues and cancel bad behavior out because the other side didn’t notice something.
- shakna 5mo agoNo, it doesn't "cancel out", but courts (not law) absolutely do "both sides" issues. Rebukes for "winning" sides of a suit are relatively common. For example, here's a case in Australia where the defence are criticised for over-reliance on AI, where the defendant was still found innocent by reason of insanity. [0] Most of the ruling is criticisms for the "winning" party. [0] https://www.9news.com.au/national/judge-sprays-lawyers-for-filing-error-riddled-ai-papers/59e33b92-6bda-45e2-a24c-84ebb1808f9f https://www.9news.com.au/national/judge-sprays-lawyers-for-f...
- SolarNet 5mo agoIf they notice. Again, a printed version of the contract that is signed has no evidence of the attack. The attack is on getting your legal LLM to hallucinate specific things of what you are signing. I doubt a judge will look favorable on people saying "but my LLM said it was 1k"... cause they are known to hallucinate.
- like_any_other 5mo agoSabotaging due diligence, even if that diligence is performed with unreliable tools, is probably not legally great. What if the attack was against plain text search, so that a computer search for a phrase turns up zero results, but the phrase is still there, legible to a human? (E.g. as an embedded picture, or some font hackery)
- Aurornis 5mo ago> The white text is not visible to humans, and therefore not binding as part of the contract. Using font tricks doesn’t make part of a contract not legally binding. Intentionally tricking an LLM doesn’t make the other party immune to the consequences of intentionally misleading the other party.