Hacker News Reader

That would presumably be treated the same as a human CSA doing the same thing.

Typically an agent of the company can act within their realm of authority.

A human CSA can give you a discount, and that is usually binding. They can't declare X corp is going to mail a box of donuts to you every day for the rest of your life and have it be.

So my expectation would be (in the absence of real world cases currently) that if you negotiate the AI into giving you a 10% discount on your bill.. it would be binding typically.

Now if there's prompt hacking involved or obvious attempts to trick the AI, that would not be binding.

As usual courts will also look at the evidence (aka the whole Transcript) and it'll matter whether the AI made a mistake on it's own (ie. Hallucinating an additional plausible rebate) or whether the customer performed an obvious prompt injection attack.

A judge will not look favorably on your 5000 token prompt of carefully selected instructions telling the AI to go wild

> A judge will not look favorably on your 5000 token prompt of carefully selected instructions telling the AI to go wild

But one day maybe even the judge will be an AI...

The judge will be forced back to law school / grad school by the imminent Deepmind reinforcement lawner.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com