Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 403 posts

Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"

#221

Post by wouldbecouldbe »

joshmanders wrote: post #179
wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing that's worse then talking to a chatbot. Is talking to a human with absolutely no power to change anything. Most Airlines do this, customer support is only allowed to repeat info from the site, or ask to fill in a form. In that case just put a bot or GPT instead of humans suffering abuse from frustrated customers.

> In that case just put a bot or GPT instead of humans suffering abuse from frustrated customers. Here's a wild idea, maybe have real customer support? I'm sure a multi-billion dollar industry can afford to hire people to do actual support who can actually do things. Chatbots and outsourced support that can't do anything but read scripts is just a big "fuck you" to your customers.

Hahah yeah I think we all would love that.

Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"

#222

Post by garciasn »

no_wizard wrote: post #210
b112 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies are going to find that they are liable for things they promise. A company representative is just that, and no ToS on a website will help evade that fact. If someone claims to be representing the company, and the company knows, and the interaction is reasonable, the company is on the hook! Just as they would be on the hook, if a human lies, or provides fraudulent information, or makes a deal with someone. Th…

I don't like the reasonable test in this case. If a representative of a company says something (including a chatbot) then in my mind, that is what it is. Companies should be on the hook for this because what their employees say matters. I think it should be entirely enforceable because it would significantly reduce manipulation in the marketplace (IE, how many times have you been promised something by an employee onl…

You are right, in a perfect world. However, due to lawyers, the perfect world has been upended for the consumer. Sure, you can fight it, but over a few dollars returned and thousands paid for an attorney to fight it--only to get a settlement that doesn't change anything.

Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"

#223

Post by RugnirViking »

rolandr wrote: post #103
krisoft wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an architecture geared to “predict the next word,” inherently produces a people pleaser It is the way they choose to train it with the reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) which made it a people pleaser. There is nothing in the architecture which makes it so. They could have made a chat agent which belittle the person asking. They could have made one which ignores your questions and only talks about el…

Hence why I also included “the training methods and data.” All three come together to produce something impressive but with inherent limitations. The human tendency to anthropomorphize leads human intuition about its capabilities astray. It’s an extremely capable bullshit artist. Training agents on every written word ever produced, or selected portions of it, will never impart the lessons that humans learn through “T…

I get where you're going, but the original comment seemed to be trying to make a totalising "LLMs are inherently this way" which is the opposite of true, they weren't like this before (see gpt2, gpt3 etc) and had to intentionally work to make it this way, which was a concious and intentional choice. earlier llms would respond to the tone presented, so if you swore with it, it would swear back - if you presented a wall of "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" it would reply with more of the same

Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"

#224

Post by dylan604 »

b112 wrote: post #190
phkahler wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Robots a a cruel joke on customers. My kid and I went 3 hours away for hew college orientation. She also booked 2 tours of apartments to look at while we were there. One of those was great, nice place, nice person helping. The other had kinda rude people in the office and had no actual units to show. "But I scheduled a tour!" turns out the chatbot "scheduled" a tour but was just making shit up. Had we not any othe…

Companies are going to find that they are liable for things they promise. A company representative is just that, and no ToS on a website will help evade that fact. If someone claims to be representing the company, and the company knows, and the interaction is reasonable, the company is on the hook! Just as they would be on the hook, if a human lies, or provides fraudulent information, or makes a deal with someone. Th…

Companies are not held liable for things that cannot be delivered even when an employee has stated they could. You can choose not to do business with them. Maybe the company chooses to reprimand the employee. How many times have we been told a technician will arrive between the hours of ___ to ___ only for it to not happen? How many times have we been told that FSD will be fully functional in 6 months? If companies were held liable for things employees said, there would be no sales people. I've never once met with a sales person that did not over sale the product/service.

Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"

#225

Post by bumby »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #163
bumby wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anytime a solution to a potentially complex problem is to the tune of "all you've got to do is..." may be an indicator that it's not a well thought out solution.

> The thread will allow replies given a delay that’s sufficient to try to avoid knee-jerk responses. Pretty ironic (or telling) that you responded in this way given the context of the discussion. You are right - it does seem to allow. But I'm not sure what you exactly mean after 20 minutes as well.

Your original point was:

>You just add a disclaimer that none of what the bot says is legally binding

The combination of legality and AI can make for a complex and nuanced problem. A superficial solution like "just add a disclaimer" probably doesn't not capture the nuance to make for a great outcome. I.e., a superficial understanding leads us to oversimplify our solutions. Just like with the responses, it seems like you are in more of a hurry to send a retort than to understand the point.

Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"

#227

Post by beeboobaa »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #146
beeboobaa wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It says "Powered by ChatGPT" in the screenshot. Okay, and? If I put "Powered by GBoard" on my emails they are suddenly not binding?

It also says "Please confirm all information with the dealership." This is as obviously non-binding as anything could possibly be. All the dealership has to do is say "no, we don't sell cars at that price".

Easy enough to confirm with a representative of the dealership via their chat window that just sold the car for $1.

The conclusion is that you probably shouldn't trust ChatGPT to represent your company.

Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"

#228

Post by Izkata »

PopAlongKid wrote: post #147
plutoh28 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh so that’s why the acronym is AGI..

It's my understanding that Generative AI and AGI are not the same thing? Also, AGI has been used far and wide for "Adjusted Gross Income", which everyone who files their U.S. income tax return deals with, it's always what I think of first when encountering it.

Right, AGI is "artificial general intelligence" and refers to what AI used to refer to. The term exists to distinguish between a theoretical human or skynet -like AI and the current models that work within a specific domain after they co-opted the term AI for the common person.

Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"

#229

Post by wharvle »

mrweasel wrote: post #40

Can someone who understand LLMs and ChatGPT explain how they expected this to work? It looks like they just had a direct ChatGPT prompt embedded in their site, but what was that suppose to do exactly? I can understand having an LLM trained on previous inquiries made via email, chat or transcribed phone calls, but a general LLM like ChatGPT, how is that going to be able to answer customers questions? The information C…

Owner/exec/whatever: reads some bullshit about AI

“OMG you guys, we can save so much money! I can’t wait to fire a bunch of people! Quick, drop everything and (run an expensive experiment with this | retool our entire data org for it(!) | throw a cartoon bag of cash at some shady company promising us anything we ask for)! OMG, I’m so excited for this I think I’ll just start the layoffs now, because how can it fail?”

- - - - -

The above is happening all over the place right now, and has been for some months. I’m paraphrasing for effect and conciseness, but not being unfair. I’ve seen a couple of these up-close already, and I’m not even trying to find them, nor in segments of the industry most likely to encounter them.

It’d be very funny if it weren’t screwing up a bunch of folks’ lives.

[edit] oh and for bigger orgs there’s a real “we can’t be left behind!” fear driving it. For VC ones, they’re desperate to put “AI” in their decks for further rounds or acquisition talks. It’s wild, and very little of it has anything to do with producing real value. It’s often harming productivity. It’s all some very Dr Strangelove sort of stuff.

Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"

#230

Post by beeboobaa »

dylan604 wrote: post #224
b112 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies are going to find that they are liable for things they promise. A company representative is just that, and no ToS on a website will help evade that fact. If someone claims to be representing the company, and the company knows, and the interaction is reasonable, the company is on the hook! Just as they would be on the hook, if a human lies, or provides fraudulent information, or makes a deal with someone. Th…

Companies are not held liable for things that cannot be delivered even when an employee has stated they could. You can choose not to do business with them. Maybe the company chooses to reprimand the employee. How many times have we been told a technician will arrive between the hours of ___ to ___ only for it to not happen? How many times have we been told that FSD will be fully functional in 6 months? If companies w…

Verbal contracts are still contracts. And this was written down.
Post reply on HN