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

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

bc.ctvnews.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 434 posts

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

#301

Post by hatthew »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #259
ndjshe3838 wrote: post #226

I hate the whole attitude the industry has towards AI models, it just seems so sloppy compared to software of the past 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

The purpose of AI, and the entire drive of investment in it, is to eliminate labor costs. There's no other purpose. It is not to advance science or make a better world, it is to make money. That money comes by the expense of the many and the gain of a few. And there will not be new jobs to replace the ones lost. There's no more "learn to code!". They're there to replace all jobs possible, make a more unequal society,…

Can you define what you mean by "AI" here? I strongly disagree with your sentiment, but perhaps you and me have different ideas of what counts as AI.

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

#302

Post by maxcoder4 »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #262
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 system" for you and me, not the system for those at the top. They'll maintain their wealth. You're presuming the rich care about "the system". That they have morals or ethics. They do not.

>You're presuming the rich care about "the system". That they have morals or ethics. They do not.

Of course they have. You're parroting some low quality extreme left talking points. Rich people are people just like you and me, with their own motivations, goals and internal values. Dehumanizing them won't solve society's problems.

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

#303

Post by jowea »

fbdab103 wrote: post #234
dmurray wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quick search found this article discussing it : https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol75/iss2/9/

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

#304

Post by citizenpaul »

steveBK123 wrote: post #260
ado__dev wrote: post #246

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-…

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 with "AI"

It also assumes that the customer service people dont make mistakes at a similar level anyway.

Another "new normal" How come anything that is "new normal" is never good?

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

#305

Post by ssnistfajen »

canadiantim wrote: post #280
m_0x wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

If a human employee makes mistakes, the company will claim responsibility and in turn reprimand the human employee instead of claiming the human employee is its own "separate legal entity".

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

#307

Post by jowea »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #270
tomrod wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 law doesn't protect a company in the world you laid out, internal compliance and controls do. A sales rep in a company with bad controls may well do exactly what you laid out.

Are you sure consideration[1] and unconscionability[2] don't form the basis for that type of legal protection? 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration 2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability

I found this article which indicates this legal protection relates to the doctrine of unilateral mistake: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol75/iss2/9/

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

#308

Post by wongarsu »

steveBK123 wrote: post #260
ado__dev wrote: post #246

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-…

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…

It's not like human call center staff has never given anyone wrong information, or cost companies money in fines and lawsuits.

The bar LLMs have to clear to beat the average front line support operations isn't that high, as your own experience shows. And compared to a large force of badly paid humans with high turnover, LLMs are pretty consistent and easy to train to an adequate level.

They won't beat great costumer support agents, but most companies don't have many of those

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

#309

Post by ssnistfajen »

brentm wrote: post #216

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.

At least the outcome is favourable to the customer who was misled, and since Canada is a Common Law country, this ruling will establish a precedent for future corporate negligence with their chatbots in Canada.

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

#310

Post by emodendroket »

ado__dev wrote: post #246

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-…

Absolutely. That’s the big problem with the race to shoehorn generative AI into everything. If it has to be right the tools aren’t good enough yet.
Post reply on HN