AI accountability

  • LLM Optimization and Enterprise Responsibility


    If You Optimize How an LLM Represents You, You Own the OutcomeEnterprises using LLM optimization tools often mistakenly believe they are not responsible for consumer harm due to the model's third-party and probabilistic nature. However, once optimization begins, such as through prompt shaping or retrieval tuning, responsibility shifts to the enterprise, as they intentionally influence how the model represents them. This intervention can lead to increased inclusion frequency, degraded reasoning quality, and inconsistent conclusions, making it crucial for enterprises to explain and evidence the effects of their influence. Without proper governance and inspectable reasoning artifacts, claiming "the model did it" becomes an inadequate defense, highlighting the need for enterprises to be accountable for AI outcomes. This matters because as AI becomes more integrated into decision-making processes, understanding and managing its influence is essential for ethical and responsible use.

    Read Full Article: LLM Optimization and Enterprise Responsibility

  • Tool Tackles LLM Hallucinations with Evidence Check


    I speak with confidence even when I don’t know . I sound right even when I’m wrong . I answer fast but forget to prove myself . What am I . And how do you catch me when I lie without lying back .A new tool has been developed to address the issue of hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) by breaking down their responses into atomic claims and retrieving evidence from a limited corpus. This tool compares the model's confidence with the actual support for its claims, flagging cases where there is high confidence but low evidence as epistemic risks rather than making "truth" judgments. The tool operates locally without the need for cloud services, accounts, or API keys, and is designed to be transparent about its limitations. An example of its application is the "Python 3.12 removed the GIL" case, where the tool identifies a high semantic similarity but low logical support, highlighting the potential for epistemic risk. This matters because it provides a method for critically evaluating the reliability of LLM outputs, helping to identify and mitigate the risks of misinformation.

    Read Full Article: Tool Tackles LLM Hallucinations with Evidence Check