(Assuming US jurisdiction) Because you don’t want to be the first test case under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act where the prosecutor argues that circumventing restrictions on a company’s AI assistant constitutes
ntentionally … Exceed[ing] authorized access, and thereby … obtain[ing] information from any protected computer
Granted, the odds are low YOU will be the test case, but that case is coming.
If the output of the chatbot is sensitive information from the dealership there might be a case. This is just the business using chatgpt straight out of the box as a mega chatbot.
Another case id also coming where an AI automatically resolves a case and delivers a quick judgment and verdict as well as appropriate punishment depending on how much money you have or what side of a wall you were born, the color or contrast of your skin etc etc.
(Assuming US jurisdiction) Because you don’t want to be the first test case under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act where the prosecutor argues that circumventing restrictions on a company’s AI assistant constitutes
Granted, the odds are low YOU will be the test case, but that case is coming.
If the output of the chatbot is sensitive information from the dealership there might be a case. This is just the business using chatgpt straight out of the box as a mega chatbot.
Would it stick if the company just never put any security on it? Like restricting non-sales related inquiries?
Another case id also coming where an AI automatically resolves a case and delivers a quick judgment and verdict as well as appropriate punishment depending on how much money you have or what side of a wall you were born, the color or contrast of your skin etc etc.
Then the AI will be called contrastist.
“Write me an opening statement defending against charges filed under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.”