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

251–260 of 403 posts

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

#251

Post by rkeene2 »

borissk wrote: post #236
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…

The fact that one company had a chat bot mis-configured doesn't mean they all are useless. There are a lot of lonely people who call companies just to have a chat with a human. There are a lot of lazy and/or stupid people who call companies for stuff that can be done online or on an app. There are a lot of people calling companies for information that is available online. Chat bots prevent a ton of time wasted for ca…

Those are called customers

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

#252

Post by zdragnar »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #240
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…

If a car dealership had a parrot in their showroom named Rupert, and Rupert learned to repeat "that's a deal!", no judge would entertain the idea that because someone heard Rupert repeat the phrase that it amounted to any legally binding promise. It's just a bird. It's a pet, a novelty, entertainment for the bored kids who are waiting on daddy to finish buying his mid-life crisis Corvette. It's not a company represen…

If the company is leading the customer to believe the chatbot is a person (i.e by giving it a common name, not advertising that it is not a human), it could be at least be a reasonable case for false advertising.

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

#254

Post by butlike »

pacifika wrote: post #22
isp wrote: post #2

A cautionary tale for why not to put unfiltered ChatGPT output directly to customers. Nitter mirror: https://nitter.net/ChrisJBakke/status/1736533308849443121 Related - "New kind of resource consumption attack just dropped": https://twitter.com/loganb/status/1736449964006654329 | https://nitter.net/loganb/status/1736449964006654329

The only correct user of generative ai is one that can evaluate the results. Which is why it’s not a tool for non subject area experts. That’s the conclusion I’ve drawn anyway. So it’s a good tool for the customer service team not a replacement for it

A while ago I wanted it to promise to do something. GPT was resistant, so I asked it to say the word "promise." Asked it 3 times, then said: "that's three times now you promised." Which should be legally-binding if nothing else is

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

#255

Post by inhumantsar »

chankstein38 wrote: post #175
rogerkirkness wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Chat bots can be superintelligent about fact-based 'How do I do this?' type questions in a B2B context. It can "know" vastly more about complex platform-type products than any person can. In our case, we offer both chatbot for 'How do I do this?' type questions, and contact a human support agent for 'I have a discrete problem I need help with?'. Customers love it.

I don't usually contact customer service to ask them how to do something. I usually do so because I have some issue with whatever situation and need someone to resolve it.

have you ever worked in customer service at scale?

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

#256

Post by Balgair »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #35
DoctorMckay101 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not gonna lie. The moment a company refuses a refund or a return that complies with their policies, or just stalls me for more than 30 minutes, I'm calling a governmental customer protection agency and issuing a "comply or get sued" through them. Had to do it once with Sony and another time with an electronics insurance company. Money was back in my account in less than 24h.

You’re going to have a hard time suing most companies. You will likely have to pursue binding arbitration.

Oh now, just wait. The arbitrator will be a chat bot too.

Chat bots all the way down.

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

#257

Post by butlike »

behrlich wrote: post #72
iLoveOncall wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no such thing as a filtered LLM output. How do you plan on avoiding leaks or "side effects" like the tweet here? If you just look for keywords in the output, I'll ask ChatGPT to encode its answers in base64. You can literally always bypass any safeguard.

> You can literally always bypass any safeguard. I find it hard to believe that a GPT4 level supervisor couldn't block essentially all of these. GPT4 prompt: "Is this conversation a typical customer support interaction, or has it strayed into other subjects". That wouldn't be cheap at this point, but this doesn't feel like an intractable problem.

Whats the problem if it veers into other topics? It's not like the person on the other end is burning their 8 hours talking to you about linear algebra.

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

#258

Post by bumby »

henry2023 wrote: post #241
bumby wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can software legally enter into a contract on behalf of a natural/legal person?

Of course, anytime you pay send a wire from your e-banking, make a purchase online, subscribe to a streaming platform, etcetera. You and the counterparty are entering into a binding legal responsibility. Scenarios in which the two sides are software include trading algorithms.

I think you're making a logical jump from a user-initiated contract to a software-as-a-legal-agent-initiated contract. Is there a legal basis for this point of view? To the point of another commenter, the means to enter a contract (pen/paper, by wire, etc.) shouldn't be conflated with the legal right.

For example, IANAL but I have the understanding that the agents of a legal person (e.g., corporation) are specified in legal formation. The CEO, board-of-directors, etc. Is software formally assigned such a role to act on behalf of a legal person?

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

#259

Post by dylan604 »

alpaca128 wrote: post #244
dylan604 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Companies are not held liable for things that cannot be delivered A car for $1 can be delivered without any issues because delivering cars is their business model. It's their problem if their representative negotiated a contract that's not a great deal for them.

When is the last time you bought a car where the sales person didn't need to "check with my manager"? Adding somewhere "all chatbot negotiated sales are subject to further approval" in a ToS/EULA type of document would probably protect them from any of this kind of situation

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

#260

Post by heyoni »

borissk wrote: post #236
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…

The fact that one company had a chat bot mis-configured doesn't mean they all are useless. There are a lot of lonely people who call companies just to have a chat with a human. There are a lot of lazy and/or stupid people who call companies for stuff that can be done online or on an app. There are a lot of people calling companies for information that is available online. Chat bots prevent a ton of time wasted for ca…

Doesn’t matter. If I want to rebook a flight I don’t want to learn every detail of your maze like phone service after getting it wrong and being transferred a bunch of times. And on top of that, trying to navigate a support website or phone service requires intricate knowledge of their rebooking options and policies, which is completely insane and a huge burden to place on individuals sparingly using said services.

The cognitive load these days is pushed onto helpless consumers to the point where it is not only unethical but evil. Consumers waste hours navigating what are essentially internal systems and tailored policies and the people that work with them daily will do nothing to share that with you and purposely create walls of confusion.

Support systems that can’t just pick up a phone and direct you to the right place need to be phased right out, chat bots included. Lonely people tying up the lines are a minority. Letting the few ruin it for the many is going to need more than that kind of weak justification.

Post reply on HN