If you convince chatbot to sell you a car for $1, can you win in court if the manufacturer doesn't deliver?
maybe you can ask lawyer_bot powered by chatgpt to represent you in court
If the judge uses ChatGPT too, I feel I am in a good position.
"I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"
341–350 of 403 posts
Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm still not understanding the point though, 6 hours later. Why can't it just be a tool for assistance that is not legally binding? Also throughout this year I have thought about those problems, and to me it's always been weird how people have so much problems with "hallucinations". And I've thought about exact similar ChatBot as Chevy used and how awesome it would be to be able to use something like that myself to…
> To me the expectations of this having to be legally binding, etc just seem misguided. I think you're getting my point confused with a tangentially related one. Your point may be "chatbots shouldn't be legally binding" and I would tend to agree. But my point was that simply throwing a disclaimer on it may not be the best way to get there. Consider if poison control uses a chatbot to answer phone calls and give advic…
The topic wasn't about someone calling poison control, it was about bad actors trying to trick ChatBot into absurd contracts.
Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans suffering the abuse have a very low chance of enacting some positive change, a bot suffering the abuse with no company human involved, decreases that low chance to 0
Humans suffering the abuse also entails... humans suffering abuse, while haranguing a bot does not.
Yes it does, there are suffering humans on the other end as well, now with one fewer path to reducing that suffering
Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only there was a way to speak to a chat bot first, in order to filter out the 90/99/99.9/99.99% of problems that can be handled efficiently by the automaton, and then transfer to a human being for the most difficult tasks!
If only there was a way to quickly bypass the chatbot when you knew you had a problem that needed a human. But it was almost the same before chatbots. You got a human, but it was a human that had a script, and didn't have authority to depart from it. You had to get that human to get to the end of their script (where they were allowed to actually think), or else you had to get them to transfer you to someone who could…
In many cases you can just say that you need a human (perhaps a few times; the chat equivalent of mashing 0 button to skip past the IVR). I usually state my request and if I see that bot doesn't do anything helpful on the first try I do this. Sometimes it doesn't work though, and that's what really drives me mad.
Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To me the expectations of this having to be legally binding, etc just seem misguided. I think you're getting my point confused with a tangentially related one. Your point may be "chatbots shouldn't be legally binding" and I would tend to agree. But my point was that simply throwing a disclaimer on it may not be the best way to get there. Consider if poison control uses a chatbot to answer phone calls and give advic…
The topic wasn't about someone calling poison control, it was about bad actors trying to trick ChatBot into absurd contracts.
I used that analogy because it’s painfully clear how it can go off the rails. The common thread is that legality isn’t simply waived in all cases. Legality is determined by reasonableness and, in some cases, by an expectation of duty. I don’t believe the Chevy example constitutes a contract but not for the reasons you’ve presented. Thinking you can just say “lol nothing here is binding but thanks for the money!” without understanding broader context is indicative of a cavalier attitude and superficial understanding.
Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
We got to this point because search engine results have become so polluted with sponsored links, low quality blogspam and SEO’d clones of Wikipedia and Stack Overflow that LLM responses are the only source of direct information that actually answers the original question.
isn't it funny that we've come full circle to just paying for search results? Which was something Google could have done long ago (and there's a new company offering paid-search services that people talk about on here, I can't recall the name). So they create the problem by increasing ads and spam in the result, then sell you the A.I. solution. What's next? Put more insidious ads that still answer the original query…
The paid search service is called Kagi. It's pretty good.
Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"
#347If you convince chatbot to sell you a car for $1, can you win in court if the manufacturer doesn't deliver?
Practically speaking, no. It would be huge news in the legal field if some court allowed it, and the decision would certainly be appealed and overturned.
Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"
#348Earlier 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…
Verbal contracts are still contracts. And this was written down.
The whole verbal contract thing is so fucking dumb. If something's important, it's important enough to write down.
Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
In this case the showroom had a sign saying "Please talk to Rupert the sales parrot for pricing."
That wouldn't change anything. The judge would rule that's clearly a joke, and the plaintiff would still lose.
Re: "I just bought a 2024 Chevy Tahoe for $1"
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 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. If the car dealership trained a parrot named Rupert and deployed it to the sales floor as a salesperson as a representative of itself, however, that's a…
> And you know, if their chat bot can be prompted to say it's down for selling an $80,000 truck for a buck, frankly, they should be held to that.
Your "should" is just your personal feelings. When it went to court, the judge would agree with me, because for one he's not supposed to have any personal feelings in the matter, and for two they've ruled repeatedly in the past that such frivolous notions as yours don't hold up... thus both precedence and rationale.
The courts simply aren't a mechanism for you to enforce your views on how important website engineering is.