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

Post by sdwr » Fri, Feb 16, 2024, 6:24 PM UTC

jasonjayr wrote: post #139

ooboe wrote: post #116

"In an argument that appeared to flabbergast a small claims adjudicator in British Columbia, the airline attempted to distance itself from its own chatbot's bad advice by claiming the online tool was "a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions." "This is a remarkable submission," Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) member Christopher Rivers wrote."" From https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbi…

IANAL, but it's astounding they took that as their defense, rather than pointing to a line (I hope?) in their ToS that says "This agreement is the complete terms of service, and cannot be amended or changed by any agent or representative of the company except by ... (some very specific process the bot can't follow)". I've seen this mentioned in several ToSs, I expect it to be standard boilerplate at this point ...

Post by bo1024 » Fri, Feb 16, 2024, 6:25 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #120

My take away from this is that Air Canada would rather fight a customer in court than suffer a few hundred dollar refund as the cost of figuring out they have a flaw in the consistency of their system. (And in the face of an extreme unlikelihood of winning against prevailing common sense, too.)

Post by BadHumans » Fri, Feb 16, 2024, 6:25 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #146

BadHumans wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chatbots aren't people and people are actually separate legal entities responsible for their own actions.

People working for companies are sometimes separate legal entities responsible for their own actions, and sometimes they act on behalf of the company they work for and the company is responsible for their actions. It depends.

Post by easyThrowaway » Fri, Feb 16, 2024, 6:31 PM UTC

Night_Thastus wrote: post #145

thsksbd wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fraud because you're in cahoots with your friend. If a random AC employee gave you a free flight, on the other hand, you'd be entitled to it. Anyway, the chat bot has no agency except that given to it by AC; unlike a human employee, therefore, its actions are 100% AC actions. I don't see how this is controversial? Why do people think that laws no longer apply when fancy high-tech pixie dust is sprinkled?

>If a random AC employee gave you a free flight, on the other hand, you'd be entitled to it. The company would be entirely within their rights to say 'this employee was wrong, that is not our policy, goodbye!'. This happens all the time with more minor incidents.

Post by carlosjobim » Fri, Feb 16, 2024, 6:32 PM UTC

Delumine wrote: post #141

carlosjobim wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law and justice is not like a computer program that you can exploit and control without limits by being a hacker. If the chatbot told them that they'd get a billion dollars, the courts would not hold Air Canada responsible for it, just as if a programmer put a decimal wrong and prices became obviously wrong. In this case, the chat bot gave a policy within reason and the court awarded the passenger what the bot had pr…

This argument seems overly dramatic and distorted. Yes, in an outrageous situation like a billion-dollar mishap, most people would know something isn't right. But for a policy that appears legitimate, especially when it's replacing a human customer service rep, it's not that obvious. In these cases, Air Canada should definitely be held accountable.