181–190 of 434 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more to shield them from cases like a rep gifting you free flights for life.
I realize the intention but I'm wondering how it works legally given what the terms actually say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canada is a good democracy. As your parliament to split Air Canada into multiple carriers or reduce any state-provided advantages to allow better competitors to emerge.
> Canada is a good democracy Didn't they freeze hundreds of people's bank accounts, with no due process, for peaceful political demonstrations? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 No better than Nigeria: https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/11/nigeria-finally-unfreeze...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ...
That does make sense, but on the flipside, let's say that they start advertising discounts on TV, but when people try to pay the reduced rate they say "according to our ToS that TV ad was not authorized to lower the price". Obviously that wouldn't fly. So why would it fly with the AI chatbot's advertising discounts?
You wouldn't normally expect an AI chatbot to be authorized to make offers. Its purpose is to try to answer common questions and it has been widely covered in popular media that they hallucinate etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does make sense, but on the flipside, let's say that they start advertising discounts on TV, but when people try to pay the reduced rate they say "according to our ToS that TV ad was not authorized to lower the price". Obviously that wouldn't fly. So why would it fly with the AI chatbot's advertising discounts?
You'd normally expect a TV ad to be authorized to make offers. You wouldn't normally expect an AI chatbot to be authorized to make offers. Its purpose is to try to answer common questions and it has been widely covered in popular media that they hallucinate etc.
I think only software engineers would think this. I don't think it is obvious to a layperson who probably has maybe never even used one before.
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.)
They get to automate a large chunk of their customer service and when the chatbot does something really stupid they can tap on the sign that says "We're not legally bound by our chatbot"
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.)
Because if they win this, they get to keep the good and ignore the bad. They get to automate a large chunk of their customer service and when the chatbot does something really stupid they can tap on the sign that says "We're not legally bound by our chatbot"
Maybe they were thinking, if we spend a bit more money on lawyers, we can try this crapshoot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
No idea about the US but this very same case was tested in France and some part of Germany in the late 90s when some PayTVs (Sky or Canal+, can't remember) tried to cancel multiple subscriptions offered with an extremely aggressive pricing by some of their agents. Courts concluded that the signed agreements superseded the official pricing and they had to offer the service for the entire length of the original subscri…
This chatbot merely said something was possible, no legally binding agreement occured.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does make sense, but on the flipside, let's say that they start advertising discounts on TV, but when people try to pay the reduced rate they say "according to our ToS that TV ad was not authorized to lower the price". Obviously that wouldn't fly. So why would it fly with the AI chatbot's advertising discounts?
You'd normally expect a TV ad to be authorized to make offers. You wouldn't normally expect an AI chatbot to be authorized to make offers. Its purpose is to try to answer common questions and it has been widely covered in popular media that they hallucinate etc.
And they did get sued. Next time maybe they'll make sure software they connect to their website is more reliable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this different from me getting one of my friends to work at Air Canada and promise me a billion dollars to cancel my flight? Will Air Canada be legal for my friend going against company policy?
The computer only does what they told it to. What they told it to do was to behave very unpredictably. They shouldn’t have done that.
These ones do what they "learned" from a lot of input data using a process that is us mimicking how we think brains could maybe function (kinda/sort off with a few unbiological "improvements").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The computer only does what they told it to. What they told it to do was to behave very unpredictably. They shouldn’t have done that.
Not these ones... These ones do what they "learned" from a lot of input data using a process that is us mimicking how we think brains could maybe function (kinda/sort off with a few unbiological "improvements").