Hacker News Reader

Comment by danpalmer | Hacker News Reader

I'm glad to see that cases are starting to be decided about the liability of using AI generated content. This is something the general public should not need to second-guess.

View on HN

Honestly LLMs aren’t ready for customer service. If I’m talking to a company I need to have a high degree of accuracy. LLMs are less accurate than trained humans.

This is my personal perception, but I think it's important that there is a clear definition of liability so that companies are able to make their own determinations of what is ready and what isn't.

Me: Chatbot, are you speaking for $COMPANY? Are you $COMPANY's agent? Can I take your statements as being $COMPANY's legal position?

Chatbot: <waffle>

Me: Please put me through to a person that can articulate $COMPANY's legal position. This conversation can serve no more purpose.

Few front-line agents have deep knowledge about their company's products or services. They trace their finger through some branches on a flowchart then dictate from a knowledgebase.

Flowcharts are reliable

Agreed, and I think following flowchart-type logic is within today's AI capabilities. This thread is full of people getting inaccurate responses from humans. I think when it comes to accuracy, a well-trained LLM likely beats the status quo of high-churn low-paid employees following a rote diagram.

Of course there should always be a way to reach a human, a senior agent with actual knowledge that can be applied in subjective ways to solve more complex problems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com