[rovmut]

Interesting framing around error cost. The piece that seems missing is accountability. A core function of a CEO is to be the single person ultimately responsible for a decision. If an engineer ships a bug, their manager is accountable. If an LLM hallucinates a disastrous market strategy, who gets fired? You'd still need a human to formally accept the risk, making the LLM more of an advisor.

[dileeparanawake]

In theory - CEO's have ultimate responsibility. In practice it's more complex - boards, delegation, company structures, hr etc etc remove a lot of ultimate responsibility from CEO's. The buck stop's here, unless, the CEO's decides otherwise. Carlos Tavares is a good example of this. Got away with more screwups than many senior employee's could dream of. Ditto lots of legacy autos. The board / shareholders typically have a lot of sway and delegated accountability / responsibility.

[rovmut]

Agree with your point of distribution of responsibility and accountability. My argument was more about bosses vs engineers not particularly about CEO's. You can't let llms take decisions and blame them later if it backfires.It has to be humans to take those high impact decisions and be accountable for the results.

[dileeparanawake]

Aha with you - so essentially the challenge is about enforcing accountability?

Humans = you’re fired / llms less clear?

Would or could rewards / penalties (like in reinforcement learning) address the accountability issue?

The assumed pre-requisite is LLM has clear responsibility (important for accountability human or otherwise).

I’m thinking responsibly is ownership of task vs accountability- who owns the outcome / get barked at if the outcome isn’t delivered?