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

Post by astrange » Sat, Feb 17, 2024, 2:24 AM UTC

kjkjadksj wrote: post #268

lesuorac wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the part I never got. How does using a computer suddenly wash away any responsibility? Like if Air Canada's desk agents were all a separate company and they told the guy the wrong information isn't Air Canada still on the hook for training their sub-contractors?

At the end of the day humans make these screwups too (even in my own anecdotal experiences with dealing with airlines), and it doesn’t matter because there is no hook to be on in the first place. If they tell me x and come to find out the policy is actually y, I’m the one thats shit out of luck and should have done the due dilligence of thoroughly reading whatever legalese this is scrawled in. These ais are at least…

Post by morkalork » Sat, Feb 17, 2024, 2:27 AM UTC

ado__dev wrote: post #271

morkalork wrote: post #240

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.

Post by astrange » Sat, Feb 17, 2024, 2:28 AM UTC

kjkjadksj wrote: post #273

qayxc wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by eru » Sat, Feb 17, 2024, 2:31 AM UTC

citizenpaul wrote: post #304

steveBK123 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think people underestimate the amount of imagined LLM use cases that require accurate responses. To the point that hallucinations will cost money in fines & lawsuits. This is a new frontier in short sighted customer service staffing (non-staffing in this case). The people who are on the frontline communicating with customers can convert unhappy customers to repeat customers, or into ex-customers. There's a few…

>that hallucinations will cost money in fines & lawsuits. Sure. They are now out about $600. They probably already laid off 500+ customer service jobs costing conservatively 30k a year each. Not including mgmt,training,health,ect. I don't think it will make a difference to the ivory tower C levels. We will just all get used to a once again lower quality help/product. Another great "enshitification" wave of the future…

Post by atoav » Sat, Feb 17, 2024, 2:36 AM UTC

KiranRao0 wrote: post #332

itsoktocry wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not like human call center staff has never given anyone wrong information, or cost companies money in fines and lawsuit A human will be more likely to say "I don't know" or pass you along, rather than outright lie.

I find it common for human customer support people to give inaccurate information. I don't know about "outright lying", but I've had people tell me things that are factually incorrect.