Why outcome-billing makes sense for AI Agents
1–10 of 72 posts
Re: Why outcome-billing makes sense for AI Agents
#2[deleted]
Re: Why outcome-billing makes sense for AI Agents
#3[deleted]
Re: Why outcome-billing makes sense for AI Agents
#4So who's the arbiter to determine if the outcome was achieved?
And how do you programmatically measure it?
Re: Why outcome-billing makes sense for AI Agents
#5So who's the arbiter to determine if the outcome was achieved? And how do you programmatically measure it?
The obvious solution is just to throw more LLM's at it to verify the output of the other LLM and that it is doing its job...
\s (mostly because you know this will be the "Solution" that many will just run with despite the very real issue of how "persuadable" these systems are)...
The real answer is that even that will fail and there will have to be a feedback loop with a human that will likely in many cases lead to more churn trying to fix the work the AI did vs if the human just did it in the first place.
Instead of focusing on the places that using an AI tool can truly cut down on time spent like searching for something (which can still fail but at least the risk when a failure is far lower vs producing output).
Re: Why outcome-billing makes sense for AI Agents
#6Outcome billing is ideal for pretty much any SaaS product.
Sounds great in theory, until you realize everyone has a different definition of outcome.
Re: Why outcome-billing makes sense for AI Agents
#7So who's the arbiter to determine if the outcome was achieved? And how do you programmatically measure it?
This is the problem with this, in simple cases like “you add N employees” then you can vaguely approximate it, like they do in the article.
But for anything that’s not this trivial example, the person who knows the value most accurately is … the customer! Who is also the person who is paying the bill, so there’s strong financial incentive for them not to reveal this info to you.
I don’t think this will work …
Re: Why outcome-billing makes sense for AI Agents
#8Outcome billing is ideal for pretty much any SaaS product. Sounds great in theory, until you realize everyone has a different definition of outcome.
Understood.
Take for instance, customer support Agent , that is supposed to resolve tickets. Assuming it resolves around 30% tickets by an objective measure. Do you think that cannot be captured and agreed upon by both sides?
Re: Why outcome-billing makes sense for AI Agents
#9So who's the arbiter to determine if the outcome was achieved? And how do you programmatically measure it?
This is the problem with this, in simple cases like “you add N employees” then you can vaguely approximate it, like they do in the article. But for anything that’s not this trivial example, the person who knows the value most accurately is … the customer! Who is also the person who is paying the bill, so there’s strong financial incentive for them not to reveal this info to you. I don’t think this will work …
I often go back to customer support voice AI agent example. Let's say, The bot can resolve tickets successfully at a certain rate . This is capturable easily. Why is this difficult? What cases am I missing?
Re: Why outcome-billing makes sense for AI Agents
#10[deleted]