221–230 of 434 posts
I just can't believe it took a lawsuit to get an airline to fork over a few hundred bucks on something that was obviously their fault.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they try to replace customer service agents with chatbots that lie, they need to be prepared to pay for the results. The result would be a de facto ban on AI chatbots, because nobody knows how to get them not to make stuff up. > I'm glad they're not allowed to use such unreliable, experimental technologies in their airplanes (737 Max notwithstanding). If you use unreliable technology in an airplane, it falls out…
> The result would be a de facto ban on AI chatbots No, the result would be a de facto ban on using them as a replacement for customer service agents. I support that for the time being since AI chatbots can't actually do that job yet because we don't know how to keep them from lying. They could put a disclaimer on it of course. To be sufficiently truthful, the disclaimer would need to be front and center and say some…
Quite a sensible judgement, it seems. Pretty outrageous for the airline to try to claim the chatbot was its own legal entity.
But at some point we're going to see more cases in the grey area in between. What's the important difference?
In both cases I think the result would be the same if the chatbot had been a human. GM doesn't have to honour every promise a sales rep makes, even if that rep is nominally entitled to enter into contracts for the company - otherwise someone might agree to sell their whole stock to an accomplice for $1. The same applies to Air Canada, my buddy there can't "advise" me I get free flights for life and have that honoured.
So where is the line? Is it about good faith by the customer, or about what a reasonable person might think the company would offer them?
[0] https://twitter.com/ChrisJBakke/status/1736533308849443121
I just can't believe it took a lawsuit to get an airline to fork over a few hundred bucks on something that was obviously their fault.
Yeah; this should've been well within some second-tier customer service manager's discretionary refund budget. Instead they've got a precedent-setting ruling that makes the chatbot a huge liability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Its purpose is to try to answer common questions Yes. And therefore people should be able to assume that the answers are correct. Some people have heard of ChatGPT, and some of those have heard that they hallucinate, sure. But that's still not that many people. And they don't know that a question answering chat bot like this is the same technology!
> And therefore people should be able to assume that the answers are correct. Why is that a necessary requirement? Something can be useful without it being perfect.
If I have to double-triple check elsewhere to make sure that the chatbot is correct, then what's the point of using the chat bot in the first place? If you can't trust it 99% of the time, or if the company says "use this, but nothing it says should be taken as fact", then why would i waste my time?
It’s like “yeah we don’t really know what it’s going to do and it might screw up but whatever just launch it”
Really surprised me that so many companies are willing to jump into LLMs without any guarantee that the output won’t be something completely insane
I just can't believe it took a lawsuit to get an airline to fork over a few hundred bucks on something that was obviously their fault.
Yeah; this should've been well within some second-tier customer service manager's discretionary refund budget. Instead they've got a precedent-setting ruling that makes the chatbot a huge liability.
https://www.businessinsider.com/car-dealership-chevrolet-cha...
I just can't believe it took a lawsuit to get an airline to fork over a few hundred bucks on something that was obviously their fault.
I just can't believe it took a lawsuit to get an airline to fork over a few hundred bucks on something that was obviously their fault.
Yeah; this should've been well within some second-tier customer service manager's discretionary refund budget. Instead they've got a precedent-setting ruling that makes the chatbot a huge liability.
This is an appropriate outcome, in my view. I'm as pro-AI as they come. But I also recognize that without a clear standard of service delivery, and in an industry inundated with M&A instead of competition, that a chatbot isn't a helpful thing but a labor cost reduction initiative.
I just can't believe it took a lawsuit to get an airline to fork over a few hundred bucks on something that was obviously their fault.