Re:Ask HN: May an Agent accepts a license to produce a build?
by otterley on Saturday January 24, 2026 @04:07PM
(#46747674)
> the specific prompt is irrelevant
The instruction prompt is absolutely relevant: it conveys to the agent the scope of its authority and the principal's intent, and would undoubtedly be used as evidence if a dispute arose over it. It's not different in kind from instructions you would give a human being.
> this still relies upon an LLM agent being held out as some kind of bona fide legal agent capable of executing some legally binding agreements
Which it can...
> You're essentially saying there is no way to run a software program without extending it the legal authority to form legal contracts on your behalf.
I'm not saying that at all. Agency law is very mature at this stage, and the test to determine that an actor is an agent and whether it acted within the scope of its authority is pretty clear. I'm not going to lay it all out here, so please go study it independently.
I'm also not entirely sure what your angle here is: are you trying to say that an LLM-based agent cannot under any circumstances be treated as acting on its principal's behalf? Or are you just being argumentative and trying to find some angle to be "right"?
The instruction prompt is absolutely relevant: it conveys to the agent the scope of its authority and the principal's intent, and would undoubtedly be used as evidence if a dispute arose over it. It's not different in kind from instructions you would give a human being.
> this still relies upon an LLM agent being held out as some kind of bona fide legal agent capable of executing some legally binding agreements
Which it can...
> You're essentially saying there is no way to run a software program without extending it the legal authority to form legal contracts on your behalf.
I'm not saying that at all. Agency law is very mature at this stage, and the test to determine that an actor is an agent and whether it acted within the scope of its authority is pretty clear. I'm not going to lay it all out here, so please go study it independently.
I'm also not entirely sure what your angle here is: are you trying to say that an LLM-based agent cannot under any circumstances be treated as acting on its principal's behalf? Or are you just being argumentative and trying to find some angle to be "right"?