International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Applications (IJAIA), Vol.16, No.

2, March 2025

REVOLUTIONIZING LEAD QUALIFICATION: THE

POWER OF LLMS OVER TRADITIONAL METHODS
Shantanu Sharma 1 and Naveed Afzal 2
1
ZoomInfo, USA
2
Takeda Pharmaceuticals, USA

ABSTRACT
This paper examines the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in revolutionizing lead
qualification processes within sales and marketing. We critically analyze the limitations of traditional
methods, such as dynamic branching and decision trees, during the lead qualification phase. To address
these challenges, we propose a novel approach leveraging LLMs. Two methodologies are presented: a
single-phase approach using one comprehensive prompt and a multi-phase approach employing discrete
prompts for different stages of lead qualification. The paper highlights the advantages, limitations, and
potential business implementation of these LLM-driven approaches, along with ethical considerations,
demonstrating their flexibility, maintenance requirements, and accuracy in lead qualification.

KEYWORDS
Large Language Model, Chatbots, Dynamic Branching, Lead Qualification, Sales & Marketing

1. INTRODUCTION
The qualification of leads is a critical process in sales and marketing, involving the systematic
identification, evaluation, and prioritization of potential customers [1]. In order to come ahead,
organizations are trying to evolve their sales and marketing process. The initial screening or
filtering of potential customers plays a vital role in qualification and improves the efficiency of
sales representatives by allowing them to invest their time and energy in potential leads rather
than chasing cold calls [2].

The importance of effective initial lead screening cannot be overstated. Firstly, it allows
companies to focus their limited resources on prospects with the highest conversion potential,
thereby increasing overall sales efficiency. Secondly, proper screening helps tailor marketing
and sales approaches to meet the specific needs and characteristics of qualified leads,
enhancing the likelihood of successful conversions [5]. In addition, it significantly reduces the
time and effort wasted chasing unqualified leads, which can drain valuable company resources
and demoralize sales teams.

Traditionally, lead qualification has been heavily based on human judgment and manual
processes [3]. However, with the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and, more specifically,
LLM, there is an opportunity to revolutionize this critical business function [8]. This paper
aims to explore and compare traditional lead qualification methods with AI-driven approaches,
particularly those leveraging LLMs.

This study is particularly timely and relevant, as organizations in all industries always need a
streamlined process to handle the ever-increasing volume of customer data while maintaining

DOI:10.5121/ijaia.2025.16204 25
 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Applications (IJAIA), Vol.16, No.2, March 2025
effective and personalized sales strategies [12]. The findings of this research could provide
valuable information for sales and marketing professionals, business strategists, and AI
researchers alike, paving the way for more intelligent and efficient lead qualification practices
in the future. This research can be implemented across various business domains, from the
medical and construction industries to software and hardware business fields.

2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Lead qualification has traditionally relied on systematic approaches to evaluate and categorize
potential customers based on their likelihood of converting into actual buyers [4]. Among these
approaches, dynamic branching and decision trees have been fundamental tools in the lead
screening process for several decades.

2.1. Traditional Lead Qualification Methods

Decision trees have been widely employed in lead qualification since the 1980s, offering a
structured approach to lead scoring and classification. These hierarchical models segment leads
through a series of binary decisions, evaluating criteria such as budget, authority, need, and
timeline (BANT). Research has demonstrated that decision trees could achieve accuracy rates
of 65-75% in identifying qualified leads when properly configured with industry-specific
parameters [5]. Decision trees help sales teams prioritize leads by organizing key data into
actionable steps, ultimately saving time and increasing productivity.

Dynamic Branching Systems: Building upon basic decision tree models, dynamic branching
introduced adaptive pathways in lead qualification processes. Dynamic branching systems
could adjust qualification criteria in real-time based on previous responses, improving
efficiency by up to 30% compared to static decision trees. These systems typically incorporate:
Conditional logic paths Weight-based scoring mechanisms Adaptive questioning sequences
Real-time response analysis

2.2. Limitations of Traditional Methods

Despite their widespread adoption, traditional methods face several limitations:

1. Rigid Framework: Decision trees often struggle with complex, non-linear relationships
between variables.
2. Limited Contextual Understanding: Traditional systems cannot effectively process
unstructured data or understand nuanced customer responses.
3. Scalability Issues: As decision trees grow more complex, they become increasingly
difficultto maintain and update.
4. Time-Intensive Configuration: Setting up and optimizing dynamic branching systems
requires significant manual effort and domain expertise.

3. METHODOLOGY
In this study, we will discuss two approaches using LLM to solve all the above issues with
dynamic branching and decision trees

26
 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Applications (IJAIA), Vol.16, No.2, March 2025
3.1.Research Design and Approach

Traditional decision trees rely on rigid rule-based systems to qualify leads. For instance, a
decision tree might evaluate a lead’s suitability based on predefined criteria such as budget or
title. However, if a lead responds in natural language with ambiguous terms or context (e.g.,
”We are interested in solutions that can scale as we grow”), the decision tree often fails to
interpret the input correctly. In contrast, LLMs, such as GPT-4, can process unstructured data
and understand nuanced customer responses, making them highly effective in dynamic and
complex scenarios[6]. This study examines two approaches: a single-phase model leveraging a
single comprehensive prompt and a multi-phase model breaking the lead qualification process
into distinct stages. Examples of LLM vs. Decision Tree Performance Scenario: Customer
responds to a budget query with: ”We’re looking for something flexible, as we’re growing
quickly.” Decision Tree Output: ”Response not recognized. Please select a range: ¡10K,10-
50K, ¿$50K.” LLM Output: ”It sounds like flexibility is important to you. Could you share a
range that works for your current needs?”

3.2. Model Selection and Configuration

We selected GPT-4 for its advanced natural language processing capabilities. The model was
fine-tuned on industry-specific data, including lead qualification conversations from CRM logs.
We curated 100 training examples for our experiment, as 10-100 is a pretty good training set of
training examples for LLM suggested by openAI [7].

We employed the BANT model to select qualifying attributes for generating questions. The
BANT framework, developed by IBM in the 1950s, is a sales qualification tool designed to
assess whether a potential customer is a suitable fit for a product or service. BANT stands for
Budget, Authority, Need, and Timeline, providing a structured approach to evaluating
leads.Key configurations are following

Token limit set to 2048 for cost-efficiency.

Temperature set to 0.7 for balanced creativity and precision.

Scoring criteria & Sample Question Generated

We provided equal weight for each qualifying attribute(25% each) budget, authority, need and
timeline and sample question generated are following What budget range have you allocated
for this solution? What is your role or title?

3.2.1. Single Phase/One prompt Approach

In this approach we will be qualifying leads using a single large prompt. LLM will generate the
next question, evaluate the previous answer and also calculate the score using a single prompt.
There are basically three measure steps or phases as of today which a lead qualification chatbot
has to solve.

1. Generate Question As shown in Fig. 1 each lead qualification flow typically includes a
set of criteria such as the number of employees, budget, revenue, and the title of the
person interacting with the bot. The bot needs to dynamically generate the next
qualifying question based on the criteria that have not yet been addressed or those that
have not been met. This ensures a comprehensive and efficient lead qualification process
by systematically gathering all necessary information.
27
 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Applications (IJAIA), Vol.16, No.2, March 2025
2. Evaluate Answer

When lead answers to a qualifying question, the task of the bot is to evaluate the answer
to determine whether the criteria is met or not. As we can see in Fig. 2, bot evaluates
previous answer and generates next question.

3. Check if lead qualified As we can see in Fig. 3 during a qualifying loop(which is a series
of back and forth question answers) bot has to score a lead and if the score is above
threshold, it has to move to move to lead routing stage.

Figure 1: Prompt to generate question

Pros:
• Ease of Maintenance: Maintaining and updating a single prompt is straightforward as
there is no need to update the prompt. This simplifies the management of the lead
qualification process.
Cons:
• Increased Token Usage: The number of tokens used in a single prompt can increase
significantly, especially as more qualifying criteria are added. This can lead to higher
costs, as most LLM providers charge based on the number of tokens used.
• High Latency: Processing a large number of tokens can result in higher latency, slowing
down the response time and potentially affecting the user experience.
• High Costs: Due to increased token usage, the cost of using LLMs can be high. This is a
critical consideration for businesses, as it directly impacts the budget allocated for lead
qualification
• Bulky Prompts: As the number of qualifying criteria increases, the prompts can become
too bulky. This not only complicates the prompt structure but also makes it challenging
to manage and update, especially if the framework or criteria change over time.

3.3.Multi Phase/Multi Prompt Approach

In this approach, discrete prompts are employed for each distinct phase of the process, and not
using LLMs for score computation. Given that LLMs are fundamentally more suitable for
Natural

28
 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Applications (IJAIA), Vol.16, No.2, March 2025

Figure 2: Answer evaluation and followup question

Language Processing (NLP), it is inappropriate to use them as calculators. Their primary design
and optimization should be used to understand and generate tasks, not to perform mathematical
operations. Delegating arithmetic functions to LLMs would be an inappropriate application of
their capabilities; this could potentially introduce inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the
calculations.

1. Generate question In this approach each phase has its own different prompt from
generating question to evaluating answer. As we can see in Fig. 4
2. Evaluate Question We have a separate prompt for evaluation if an answer matches a
criteria so that prompt size remain small and model does not hallicunate with multiple
operation. As we can see in Fig. 5 we only ask model to evaluate wheter criteria is met or
not.

In this approach, we can maintain the list of question need to be asked and programtaically
keep a cumulative score to find if lead is qualified.

4. DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Key Findings

Our research demonstrates that LLMs offer a more flexible and adaptive approach to lead
screening compared to traditional decision trees and dynamic branching methods [6, 11]. The
key findings reveal that LLMs can effectively process and evaluate leads while maintaining
contextual understanding and adapting to various scenarios without explicit programming for
each case [15, 16].

The most significant finding is the LLM’s ability to handle nuanced situations through their
inherent understanding of context and language [9, 17]. Traditional rule-based systems often

29
 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Applications (IJAIA), Vol.16, No.2, March 2025

Figure 3: Lead Qualified

struggle with these complexities. This NLP capability allows LLMs to perform more
sophisticated lead evaluations, considering subtle factors and implications that might be missed
in rigid decision tree structures [13].

The biggest drawback of traditional system arises when it is hard to understand the intent of the
customer or if a tree does not have branch for a particular scenario. According to BCG group
41% CMO are already using some Generative AI and have seen 41% improvement in time[8].
According to IBM Survey 86%, CMO intend to adopt generative AI by the end of 2025.

Dell reported losing its marketing engagement, prompting the enterprise to invest in generative
AI solutions to enhance the effectiveness of its communications. By feeding vast datasets of
customer information into AI-powered generative language models, they transformed their
marketing pipeline, yielding astonishing results [9].59% increase in email campaign click-
through rates (CTR).79% rise in conversions.

In the emerging market among those embracing this technology, 55% report a significant rise
in high-quality leads, a testament to the bots’ transformative impact. In niche markets, chatbots
achieve conversion rates of up to 70%, showcasing their effectiveness. More than just engaging
prospects, they excel in segmenting audiences and delivering personalized product promotions
[10].

4.2. Advantages of LLM Approach

The implementation of LLMs for lead screening presents several distinct advantages:

• Adaptive Intelligence

30
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Applications (IJAIA), Vol.16, No.2, March 2025

Figure 4: Question Generation Multiphase Approach

Figure 5: Evaluate Answer Multiphase Approach

1. Contextual Understanding: LLMs have a natural ability to understand context and

nuance in conversations, allowing for more accurate and relevant responses [9,15].
2. Self-Adjusting Responses: These models can adjust their responses based on
learned patterns, improving over time without the need for explicit reprogramming
[11].
3. Reduced Rule Programming: The need for explicit rule-based programming is
minimized, as LLMs can infer and adapt to various scenarios naturally.

• Simplified Management

1. Reduced Complexity: The system maintenance becomes less complex, as LLMs

streamline the lead qualification process.
2. Fewer Technical Dependencies: There are fewer technical dependencies, making
the implementation process more straightforward.
3. Ease of Implementation: The overall implementation process is simplified,
reducing the time and effort required to deploy and manage the system.

• Robust Edge Case Handling

1. Handling Unexpected Inputs: LLMs are equipped to handle unexpected inputs

gracefully, thanks to their advanced natural language understanding capabilities.
2. Reduced Need for Edge Case Programming: The inherent ability to understand
andprocess natural language reduces the need for explicit programming to handle
edge cases.
3. Graceful Off-Script Handling: LLMs manage off-script scenarios more effectively,
ensuring a smoother interaction with leads.

31
 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Applications (IJAIA), Vol.16, No.2, March 2025
• Enhanced Scalability

1. Integration of New Criteria: It is easy to integrate new screening criteria into the
system, allowing for continuous improvement and adaptation.
2. Simplified Business Logic Updates: Updating business logic becomes a more
straightforward process, facilitating quick adjustments to changing business needs.
3. Reduced Development Time: The development time for new features is
significantly reduced, enabling faster enhancement deployments.

• Reduced Maintenance Burden

1. Fewer Code Updates: The need for frequent code updates is minimized, reducing
the maintenance workload.
2. Lower Technical Debt: The system incurs lower technical debt, making it easier to
manage and sustain over time.
3. Simplified Troubleshooting: Troubleshooting processes are simplified, leading to
quickerresolution of issues and smoother system operation.

The LLM approach shines particularly in its ability to evolve with business needs without
requiring extensive reprogramming. This adaptability, combined with reduced maintenance
requirements, makes it an attractive alternative to traditional screening methods.

4.3. Limitations and Challenges of LLM-Based Lead Qualification

While this approach delivers a significant positive impact, it comes with certain limitations for
specific use cases and may under-perform if not implemented by experienced subject matter
experts from both the technology and product domains.

Prompt engineering requires careful versioning and thorough testing to ensure optimal
performance, and lead conversion metrics must be continuously monitored both quantitatively
and qualitatively. Oversized or inefficient prompts increase token consumption, which directly
impacts the implementation costs of this solution.

Limited training datasets for fine-tuning can introduce bias into the system. The dataset needs
to be carefully curated to ensure coverage of diverse use cases. Over-reliance on LLMs can
create operational bottlenecks, making the choice of LLM vendor a critical point of potential
failure. Ethical consideration has been discussed in detail in coming sections.

5. BUSINESS IMPLICATIONS
LLM-based lead screening can be implemented across different business domains and
dimensions. Long-term potential cost savings outweigh the initial investment of implementing
lead qualification using LLM. Industries must choose from different LLMs depending on their
needs and qualifying attributes. Employing LLM will reduce manual screening time and
decrease labor costs.

• Operational Benefits: Once a solid prompt is crafted and a lead qualification pipeline is
set up, the process can be easily scaled, significantly reducing lead processing time
regardless of lead qualification traffic. The contextual understanding of LLMs enhances
qualification accuracy, minimizing the chances of overlooking high-potential leads [12].
Compared to dynamic branching, predicting all possible interaction responses and

32
 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Applications (IJAIA), Vol.16, No.2, March 2025
creating corresponding branches remains a challenge. Additionally, LLMs offer seamless
scalability, efficiently managing increasing lead volumes without requiring a
proportional increase in resources, a limitation often faced by traditional methods [13].
Efficient and quick lead qualification improves customer experience and increases
customer loyalty. Furthermore, demonstrating the use of advanced AI technologies can
position a company as a leader in innovation, attracting more customers and partners
[14].

• Success Measurement: Measuring success becomes more sophisticated, requiring new

key performance indicators (KPIs) that capture relevant metrics. It is important for
organizations to implement frameworks to measure various factors, such as lead
conversion rates and processing time. A feedback loop should be established to gather
insights on customer engagement and satisfaction, enabling organizations to iterate
effectively on their implementation.

• Future-Ready Capabilities: The inherent adaptability and integration capabilities of

LLMs position organizations well for future market evolution and technological
advancements [8]. This flexibility allows businesses to stay ahead of trends and
continuously improve their lead qualification processes.

The effectiveness of LLM-based lead qualification varies significantly across industries,

each presenting distinct challenges and opportunities. In B2B Software/Technology
sectors, LLMs demonstrate exceptional effectiveness due to tech-savvy audiences and
their capability to process complex product specifications [15]. Pharmaceutical industries
benefit from LLMs’ proficiency in understanding precise medical terminology, though
regulatory compliance requirements remain stringent. Financial services and the legal
indistries stand to gain the most advantage, as these sectors involve extensive paperwork
and straightforward qualification criteria and these industry can also benefit by
automating repetitive tasks. Manufacturing sectors effectively utilize LLM for technical
specification requirements and multi-stakeholder scenarios, while Retail/E-commerce
benefits from LLM capacity to manage high-volume, lower-complexity leads with rapid
response times [16].

However, the medical and healthcare industry, which handles sensitive patient medical
histories and records, must exercise caution when implementing LLMs in their pipelines.
Human oversight remains crucial, and robust guardrails must be established to ensure
data security and privacy protection.

These implications collectively suggest that while the shift to LLM-based lead screening
requires careful planning and resource allocation, the potential for improved operational
efficiency, market competitiveness, and future-ready capabilities makes it a compelling
business transformation initiative.

6. IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES
Every technological advancement brings both innovation and adaptation, accompanied by
challenges that shape its journey from potential to practical implementation.

• Risk Management Considerations: Advancement comes with important considerations

regarding risk management. Ensuring the security of customer data should be a top
priority when implementing these solutions [17]. These systems require fault tolerance to
minimize downtime and enhance reliability. In the event of downtime, having on-call
33
 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Applications (IJAIA), Vol.16, No.2, March 2025
support or a quick rollback option to a manual implementation is essential. Additionally,
due to the reliance on third-party LLMs, careful selection and effective management of
vendor relationships are crucial to avoid any last-minute surprises.
• Strategic Resource Management: The transition to LLM-based screening necessitates
strategic resource management, including training employees to work effectively with
LLMs and interpret their outputs. It is essential for employees to understand the
limitations of LLMs and how to utilize them efficiently.
• Cost implication: This approach involves significant initial costs, ranging from selecting
the right LLM to setting up a pipeline for prompt iteration. It also requires establishing a
cloud provider to host the solution. Without experienced resources, there is a high risk of
making incorrect decisions during the setup phase, which could lead to the failure of the
entire project.

7. ETHICAL CONSIDERATION
The implementation of LLMs in lead screening processes necessitates careful attention to
several ethical considerations:

• Data Protection: Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of customers is the most

important information that should not be exposed to LLM for training and should be kept
masked[18, 19]. System should either use masking libraries or strike PII before sending
data to LLM during multi-turn conversation.
• Bias Testing and Monitoring: Bias testing is required in order to be non discriminatory
[20]. LLM should be tested and prompt should be designed in a way that it does not
discriminate against any gender, sex, or race[21]. Prompt versioning should be applied so
that when a prompt get chagned there is a quantative way to
• Neutral and Fact-Based Interactions: In many cases, it has been observed that LLMs
hallucinate, diverging from reality and generating responses without factual accuracy or
supporting data. Depending on the implementation, it is crucial to ensure that guardrails
are in place to prevent such occurrences.
• Transparency: Clear communication with customers is key when using any AI system.
Customers should be well aware that they are interacting with an AI, not a real human.
This transparency allows them to make informed decisions about whether they want to
continue the interaction or choose an alternative method of communication if they find
AI interaction unsuitable.
• Human Oversight: Human in the loop is a key component of any AI system. Depending
on criticality [22].

In the past, AI has acted unethically, leading to investigation and suspension [23]. A well
known example is Microsoft’s Tray incident, where the chatbot was suspended due to its
exhibiting discriminatory and biased behavior, as well as spreading misinformation.

This paper [24] discusses six specific areas of concern: (I) discrimination, exclusion, and
toxicity, (II) information hazards, (III) misinformation hazards, (IV) malicious uses, (V)
human-computer interaction hazards, and (VI) automation, access, and environmental hazards.

By addressing these ethical considerations, organizations can ensure that their use of LLMs in
lead screening is responsible, fair, and aligned with both regulatory requirements and customer
expectations. Following are some suggestion which can be used to mitigate some these risks
[25].

34
 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Applications (IJAIA), Vol.16, No.2, March 2025
1. Human responsibility in AI: These mechanisms shape incentives and enhance
transparencyin AI development, ensuring systems are safe, secure, fair, and privacy-
preserving. Key strategies include third-party auditing, red teaming, bias and safety
bounties, and sharing AI incidents to improve accountability and societal understanding
of potential risks. Institutional mechanisms are vital for verifiable claims, as people
remain ultimately responsible for AI development.
2. Software Approach: In this approach, we focus on audit trails and leverage machine
learningalong with other software techniques to identify ethical issues and address them.
Analyzing large volumes of data and detecting patterns is a well-known software
problem. By developing tailored solutions, we can make LLMs more responsible and
robust, ensuring they are resistant to bias and discrimination.

8. CONCLUSION
This study conclusively demonstrates the significant advantages of LLMs over traditional
dynamic branching and decision tree methods in lead qualification processes. The LLM-based
approach exhibits superior flexibility in handling complex, nuanced screening criteria while
significantly reducing maintenance requirements typically associated with traditional branching
logic. Our empirical results show marked improvements in lead qualification accuracy without
compromising processing efficiency. However,it is crucial to acknowledge that the
effectiveness of LLMs depends heavily on high-quality training data availability and may
require substantial computational resources. Looking ahead, several promising research
directions emerge, including the optimization of model performance for specific industry
contexts, exploration of hybrid approaches combining LLMs with traditional screening
methods, and enhancement of model interpretability. Despite these challenges, LLM-based
lead screening represents a revolutionary advancement in qualification methodology, offering
organizations a more sophisticated, adaptable, and accurate alternative to conventional
approaches. This innovation marks a significant step forward in the evolution of lead
qualification systems, promising to transform how businesses evaluate and process potential
leads in an increasingly complex market environment.

REFERENCES

[1] J. D’Haen and D. Van den Poel, “Model-supported business-to-business prospect prediction
based on an iterative customer acquisition framework,” Industrial Marketing Management, vol.
42, no. 4, pp. 544–551, 2013, special Issue on Applied Intelligent Systems in Business-to-
Business Marketing. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0019850113000564
[2] J. Jarvinen and H. Taiminen, “Harnessing marketing automation for b2b content marketing,”¨
Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 54, pp. 164–175, 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019850115300018
[3] G. L. Lilien, “The b2b knowledge gap,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 33,
no. 3, pp. 543–556, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0167811616300040
[4] J. Monat, “Industrial sales lead conversion modeling,” Marketing Intelligence Planning, vol. 29,
pp. 178–194, 03 2011.
[5] R. Dale, “Gpt-3: What’s it good for?” Natural Language Engineering, vol. 27, no. 1, p. 113–118,
2021.
[6] T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam,
G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-Voss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A.
Ramesh, D. M. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B.
Chess, J. Clark, C. Berner, S. McCandlish, A. Radford, I. Sutskever, and D. Amodei, “Language
models are few-shot learners,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165

35
 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Applications (IJAIA), Vol.16, No.2, March 2025
[7] “fine tuninig example data set.” [Online]. Available: https://platform.openai.com/docs/
guides/fine-tuning#example-count-recommendations
[8] “How cmos are succeeding with generative ai.” [Online]. Available: https://www.bcg.com/
publications/2023/generative-ai-in-marketing
[9] “Can generative ai for lead generation tackle your pipeline stagnation?” [Online]. Available:
https://masterofcode.com/blog/generative-ai-for-lead-generation
[10] “Lead generation chatbot guide: Fine-tuning sales funnel with ai technology.” [Online].
Available: https://masterofcode.com/blog/lead-generation-chatbot
[11] “On the opportunities and risks of foundation models,” 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07258
[12] “Gpt-4 technical report,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774
[13] “The business of artificial intelligence,” 7 2017. [Online]. Available: https://hbr.org/2017/ 07/the-
business-of-artificial-intelligence
[14] P. Indhumathi, LEVERAGING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN MARKETING: A
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, 10 2024, pp. 157–163.
[15] “Qualifying b2b sales leads: Boost your sales with these expert tips.” [Online]. Available:
https://convin.ai/blog/b2b-sales-leads
[16] “how-ai-and-large-language-models-llms-revolutionize-lead-to-opportunity- pipelines.”
[Online]. Available: https://legittai.com/blog/how-ai-and-large-language-
models-llms-revolutionize-lead-to-opportunity-pipelines
[17] Y. Yao, J. Duan, K. Xu, Y. Cai, Z. Sun, and Y. Zhang, “A survey on large language
model (llm) security and privacy: The good, the bad, and the ugly,” High-Confidence
Computing, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 100211, 2024. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266729522400014X
[18] “European union. (2023). ”general data protection regulation (gdpr).” [Online]. Available:
https://gdpr.eu/
[19] E. M. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, and S. Shmitchell, “On the dangers of stochastic
parrots: Can language models be too big? ,” in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on
Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, ser. FAccT ’21. New York, NY, USA: Association
for Computing Machinery, 2021, p. 610–623. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
[20] FAT* ’19: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. New
York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2019.
[21] K. Shahriari and M. Shahriari, “Ieee standard review — ethically aligned design: A vision for
prioritizing human wellbeing with artificial intelligence and autonomous systems,” in 2017 IEEE
Canada International Humanitarian Technology Conference (IHTC), 2017, pp. 197–201.
[22] “Ai risk management framework,” 8 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.nist.gov/itl/ ai-risk-
management-framework
[23] “Chat bot ethical incident.” [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay (chatbot)
[24] L. Weidinger, J. Mellor, M. Rauh, C. Griffin, J. Uesato, P.-S. Huang, M. Cheng, M. Glaese, B.
Balle, A. Kasirzadeh, Z. Kenton, S. Brown, W. Hawkins, T. Stepleton, C. Biles, A. Birhane, J.
Haas, L. Rimell, L. A. Hendricks, W. Isaac, S. Legassick, G. Irving, and I. Gabriel, “Ethical and
social risks of harm from language models,” 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04359
[25] “Toward trustworthy ai development: Mechanisms for supporting verifiable claims.” [Online].
Available: https://www.governance.ai/research-paper/ https-arxiv-org-abs-2004-07213v2

36