Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Air Canada is responsible for chatbot's mistake: B.C. tribunal

bc.ctvnews.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 434 posts

Re: Air Canada is responsible for chatbot's mistake: B.C. tribunal

#61

Post by johnwalkr »

D13Fd wrote: post #57
fumeux_fume wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Granted, I’m an American and I’ve had a couple glasses of wine tonight, but I’ve read this comment like 8 times and it still makes no sense to me.

The currency is worth 30% of a U.S. dollar but the cost of living is also significantly lower, so to a person living in either country $600 feels like about the same amount of money.

The cost of living is often not lower in Canada. Average housing cost is now significantly higher in Canada and for those Canadians with an easy path to move to the US (like SW developer, engineer or doctor), the numbers I am recently seeing are salary of 2-3x in the US, housing cost 0.5 to 0.7x, and other cost of living a bit less.

Re: Air Canada is responsible for chatbot's mistake: B.C. tribunal

#62

Post by EZ-E »

usaar333 wrote: post #11

I find it hard to understand the calculus on Air Canada's side of fighting this. Not a lot of money and really bad press.

Realistically, all complaints from the flyer went to first level customer service agents which are only told to enforce the policy as is. This probably did not get escalated.

Re: Air Canada is responsible for chatbot's mistake: B.C. tribunal

#63

Post by teraflop »

guardiangod wrote: post #36

I just want to give a shoutout to BC's Civil Resolution Tribunal. They take their job seriously, and make it as easy as possible for plaintiff to submit a complaint. I once had the misfortune of generating a batch of defective enterprise-grade SSD from a S company. That S company requires all RMA to go through the sales channel you bought the SSD from, but the sales company we used was out of business. S has refused…

Hmm, browsing through some of those cases, I'm starting to notice a pattern of Air Canada not taking these tribunal proceedings entirely seriously.

From this case:

> I find that if Air Canada wanted to a raise a contractual defense, it needed to provide the relevant portions of the contract. It did not, so it has not proven a contractual defence. [...]

> In its boilerplate Dispute Response, Air Canada denies “each and every” one of Mr. Moffatt’s allegations generally. However, it did not provide any evidence to the contrary.

From https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5254...

> Despite having the opportunity to provide documentary evidence, Air Canada did not do so.

From https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5249... and https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5188...

> Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that [Air Canada] received the Dispute Notice and did not respond to it by the deadline set out in the CRT's rules.

From https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5230...

> Based on the proof of notice form submitted by the applicant, I am satisfied that [Air Canada] received the Dispute Notice and did not respond to it by the deadline set out in the CRT's rules.

(I also found a fun one that hinges on an Air Canada employee's apparent inability to do basic arithmetic: https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5225...)

Re: Air Canada is responsible for chatbot's mistake: B.C. tribunal

#65

Post by qingcharles »

teraflop wrote: post #63
guardiangod wrote: post #36

I just want to give a shoutout to BC's Civil Resolution Tribunal. They take their job seriously, and make it as easy as possible for plaintiff to submit a complaint. I once had the misfortune of generating a batch of defective enterprise-grade SSD from a S company. That S company requires all RMA to go through the sales channel you bought the SSD from, but the sales company we used was out of business. S has refused…

Hmm, browsing through some of those cases, I'm starting to notice a pattern of Air Canada not taking these tribunal proceedings entirely seriously. From this case: > I find that if Air Canada wanted to a raise a contractual defense, it needed to provide the relevant portions of the contract. It did not, so it has not proven a contractual defence. [...] > In its boilerplate Dispute Response, Air Canada denies “each an…

I see a lot of stuff like that in civil litigation in David v. Goliath situations.

Usually the large entity puts in little effort and relies on the fact that its (much more expensive) lawyers generally have more sway with the court (judge), are more persuasive even when their arguments are nonsense, and can just drag cases on for years until the smaller party is burned out.

Re: Air Canada is responsible for chatbot's mistake: B.C. tribunal

#66

Post by ornornor »

guardiangod wrote: post #36

I just want to give a shoutout to BC's Civil Resolution Tribunal. They take their job seriously, and make it as easy as possible for plaintiff to submit a complaint. I once had the misfortune of generating a batch of defective enterprise-grade SSD from a S company. That S company requires all RMA to go through the sales channel you bought the SSD from, but the sales company we used was out of business. S has refused…

S is such a disaster that I have established a personal policy of staying away from S and never buying their things (TV fridges phones SSDs printers… anything they make). This policy has drastically improved my sanity. They produce expensive junk and have no regard for quality or security/privacy. I’d still buy things that have S components in them but not whole S devices.

Re: Air Canada is responsible for chatbot's mistake: B.C. tribunal

#67

Post by HWR_14 »

nkrisc wrote: post #31
nine_zeros wrote: post #2

So a lawsuit vector exists against AI-enabled lack of care for customers. Would be interesting to see if a cottage industry can open up around prompting inaccurate information from company AI info to reap via lawsuits.

You’d have to do so without appearing to intend to do so, and in either case would be fraudulent.

I don't see how it's fraud or would need to have a disguised intent.

Re: Air Canada is responsible for chatbot's mistake: B.C. tribunal

#68

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

petesergeant wrote: post #59
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow. I wrote an "AI" chatbot in highschool and it certainly didn't reproduce hard-coded "right answers". LLMs don't somehow invalidate the work of their predecessors. Chat bots aren't new. I'm not really sure why you brought up LLMs at all. Are chat bots synonymous with LLMs now? I sure hope not because then this sort of scenario only gets worse.

> I'm not really sure why you brought up LLMs at all I didn't > I wrote an "AI" chatbot in highschool and it certainly didn't reproduce hard-coded "right answers" Sounds like it would have been a poor choice for a customer-service bot then?

My apologies, I misread.

And it would certainly have been a poor choice for customer service, but I have definitely used chat bots that are far worse than that one was.

Re: Air Canada is responsible for chatbot's mistake: B.C. tribunal

#69

Post by darylteo »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #52
petesergeant wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What difference does it make? In liability, none, but it'd at least be more understandable if it was an LLM, rather than something that should have been hard-coded with the right answers.

I'm not sure I follow. I wrote an "AI" chatbot in highschool and it certainly didn't reproduce hard-coded "right answers". LLMs don't somehow invalidate the work of their predecessors. Chat bots aren't new. I'm not really sure why you brought up LLMs at all. Are chat bots synonymous with LLMs now? I sure hope not because then this sort of scenario only gets worse.

> Are chat bots synonymous with LLMs now? I sure hope not because then this sort of scenario only gets worse.

You're right. LLMs are now the de facto standard implementation for Support Chatbots. Almost every chatbot platform offers a AI Chatbot product in some form.

- they're also frequently shown to be prone to hallucinations - and also shown to be tricked - and can be gamed into breaking it's prompt cage

https://twitter.com/ChrisJBakke/status/1736533308849443121

This case therefore sets a precedent for these scenarios, with or without a disclaimer that you should confirm this information with the dealership. If you assume the liability for the accuracy of "ye old bot" responses, then it raises the possibility that you assume the liability for the accuracy of "ye new bot" responses.

My opinion is that once the AI wild west phase has ended, and the legal reckoning is upon it, everyone will learn that using AI does not absolve one of liability. This would essentially kill the dream of full self-driving automation, among other things.

Re: Air Canada is responsible for chatbot's mistake: B.C. tribunal

#70

Post by Orangeair »

teraflop wrote: post #63
guardiangod wrote: post #36

I just want to give a shoutout to BC's Civil Resolution Tribunal. They take their job seriously, and make it as easy as possible for plaintiff to submit a complaint. I once had the misfortune of generating a batch of defective enterprise-grade SSD from a S company. That S company requires all RMA to go through the sales channel you bought the SSD from, but the sales company we used was out of business. S has refused…

Hmm, browsing through some of those cases, I'm starting to notice a pattern of Air Canada not taking these tribunal proceedings entirely seriously. From this case: > I find that if Air Canada wanted to a raise a contractual defense, it needed to provide the relevant portions of the contract. It did not, so it has not proven a contractual defence. [...] > In its boilerplate Dispute Response, Air Canada denies “each an…

That last one was great

> In his statement, Mr. Mackoff described distinct conversations he had with each employee, provided the supervisor’s name, and submitted the diagram he drew while trying to explain to the employees how to count the 10 calendar days. As Mr. Mackoff’s witness statement includes so much detail, and as Air Canada has produced no contrary statement, I accept that Air Canada refused to transport both Mr. and Mrs. Mackoff on February 15, 2022 and so breached its contract with them.

Post reply on HN