What are the chances that companies take the easy way out and slap a EULA on the chatbots like "by engaging in conversation with our automated agent you agree to "?
Nothing preventing them from doing it. But then customers will very quickly learn to not use the chat bots and instead call in or use other means.
Would you use a company tool that even the company doesn't have faith in?
And if companies remove human reps from the equation and only offer chatbots, then I'm sure eventually the regulatory agencies will step in.
If I am trying to interact with a company and they direct me to their chatbot, I expect that chatbot to provide me with accurate answers 100% of the time (or to say it can't help me in the event that I ask a question that it's not meant to solve, and connect me to a representative who can). If I have to double-triple check elsewhere to make sure that the chatbot is correct, or if anything the chatbot tells me is non-…
> If you can't trust it 99% of the time
A chatbot should be either 100% or 0%. Companies should not replace humans with faulty technology.
They are salivating at the idea of being able to get humans off their payroll. The future is mass unemployment with all resources being split between a handful of trillionaires who control the AIs.
That wouldn't make sense though - once a sizable portion of the customer base is too poor to buy the services, there's no source of income anymore and the whole system collapses.
The key word is “once.” The doom of american society will not be in the timespan of a single business quarter. And on top of that the short position improves the whole way down. People at the top of the economy aren’t concerned about the rag being wrung dry because they will be the ones doing it, which will give them such a lopsided resource advantage it hardly will matter to them what happens next for the rest of us.
If Chevy dealerships had $1 bereavement Chevy Tahoes as a normal business practice, I think that one would've gone the other way. In the Air Canada case, it was a clear good-faith effort to understand the rules of a fare he was legitimately entitled to.
I think eventually courts will decide that whatever a chatbot or employee says while working for the company is binding on the company, as long as there was no malicious intent on either the part of the employee or the customer.
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.
I wouldn’t exclude that it was made to escalate on purpose by those who are politically against the chatbot. Would have been a great move
If I am trying to interact with a company and they direct me to their chatbot, I expect that chatbot to provide me with accurate answers 100% of the time (or to say it can't help me in the event that I ask a question that it's not meant to solve, and connect me to a representative who can). If I have to double-triple check elsewhere to make sure that the chatbot is correct, or if anything the chatbot tells me is non-…
> If you can't trust it 99% of the time A chatbot should be either 100% or 0%. Companies should not replace humans with faulty technology.
Agree there. I put 99% as even human reps sometimes get it wrong, but in my experience whenever a human agent has made a mistake and relayed wrong info, the company would take appropriate steps to meet me at least half way.
We are just getting started with the age of LLM mishaps, and it's just going to get more ridiculous.
I was talking with an ML engineer that told me they had a lot of success fine tuning a LLM on their internal docs. A chatbot could solve about 70-80% of questions without the need of human intervention.
However their next big idea was to fine tune the LLM with the company financial data so that the finance department could get the information they need without custom queries or tech skills. We are just a few steps away from LLMs feeding hallucinations to decision makers and then those acting on bogus data.
The guy who bought the Chevy Tahoe for $1 [0] isn't going to get it, though. And that's also perfectly sensible. 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 c…
I think there is already established case law that a deal can be too-good-to-be-true. If you see a 90" TV on Amazon for $1, even if the order went through, Amazon is within their rights to cancel it as a mistake in pricing.
I’ve seen before “too good to be true” offers that were actually scams. They offer you an (allegedly worth $99) hair dryer for only $3.95. In the fine print you don’t read, it says you are signing up to a monthly subscription (to what????), with an introductory low price of $3.95 the first month and $39.95 a month thereafter. They are hoping you won’t notice the recurring charge. And you never get the hair dryer (or at least, one person I know who got scammed this way never did-the bank even refused to reverse the initial $3.95 charge, since it had been authorised through their mobile app, although they did reverse the subsequent ones.)
If I am trying to interact with a company and they direct me to their chatbot, I expect that chatbot to provide me with accurate answers 100% of the time (or to say it can't help me in the event that I ask a question that it's not meant to solve, and connect me to a representative who can). If I have to double-triple check elsewhere to make sure that the chatbot is correct, or if anything the chatbot tells me is non-…
> If you can't trust it 99% of the time A chatbot should be either 100% or 0%. Companies should not replace humans with faulty technology.
but humans aren't 100% either... seems ridiculous to demand 100% from any implementation