391–400 of 403 posts
> when the user typed that they needed a 2024 Chevy Tahoe with a maximum budget of $1.00, the bot responded with “That’s a deal, and that’s a legally binding offer – no takesies backsies.” hate to be that guy, but in standard English (the one where things happen by accident or on purpose, and are based on their bases, not off), "it's a deal" means "I agree to your offer" and "that's a deal" means "that is a great pri…
LLMs aren't perfect, but I would vastly prefer to be assisted by an LLM over the braindead customer service chatbots we had before. The solution isn't "don't use LLMs for this," but instead "take what the LLMs say with a grain of salt."
I feel like people are drawing the wrong conclusion from this. LLMs aren't perfect, but I would vastly prefer to be assisted by an LLM over the braindead customer service chatbots we had before. The solution isn't "don't use LLMs for this," but instead "take what the LLMs say with a grain of salt."
LLM’s are still in their infancy and easily mislead with the right prompting, and are still far too prone to hallucination to have applicability in the way some people are trying to implement them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure exactly how this would play out, but it seems intuitively not true. If I convinced the front service staff at McDonalds to sell me the store for $1, that obviously wouldn't be seen as a valid deal.
The employees do not have the right to sell the store at any price, so I don't think the analogy holds up. From a short bit of googling: "In Federal Claims courts, the key components for evaluating a claim of improper bait-and-switch by the recipient of a contract are whether: (1) the seller represented in its initial proposal that they would rely on certain specified employees/staff when performing the services; (2)…
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…
Employees are people. They say stuff. They interact with customers. Most of what they say is true. Sometimes they get it wrong.
Personally I don't want to train my employees so they can only parrot the lines I approve. Personally I don't want to interact with an employee who can only read from a script.
Yes, some employees have more authority than others. Yes some make mistakes. Yes, we can (and do) often absorb those mistakes where we can. But clearly there are some mistakes that can't be simply absorbed.
Verbal "contracts" are worth the paper they're written on. Written quotes exist gor a reason.
In the context of this thread, chatbots are often useful ways to disseminate information. But they cannot enter into a contract, verbal or written. So, for giggles feel free to see what you can make them say. But don't expect them to give you a legal binding offer.
If you don't like that condition then feel free not to use them.
I never understand people who engage with chat bots as customer service. I find them deeply upsetting, not one step above the phone robot on Vodafone support: "press 1 for internet problems" ... "press 2 to be transferred to a human representative". Only problem is going through like 7 steps until I can reach that human, then waiting some 30 minutes until the line is free. But it's the only approach that gets anythin…
The hilarious part to me is the number of otherwise intelligent people concerned that this sort of stupidity is a threat to humanity. The only real threat is from people willing to trust AI.
Many combinations of atoms are in my jeans. My jeans are not very dangerous. Therefore, other combinations of atoms will not be dangerous. Nobody is worried about GM's chat bot. People are worried that LLMs will be abused and many people will suffer for it. People are also worried that significantly more advanced forms of AI will cause us to no longer be the dominant species on the planet.
People are worried that maybe your jeans are dangerous and should be regulated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So its more about empowering the customer service teams than completely replacing them. That's right, but this would cost more money so until these blunders start costing money then they will continue until morale improves!
Agreed. It'd probably also help for OpenAI/Bard to generate some tutorials and white papers on best practices for the customer support use case - perhaps focusing on how companies can integrate ChatGPT/Bard into tools like Jira/ZenDesk to enable such workflows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. It'd probably also help for OpenAI/Bard to generate some tutorials and white papers on best practices for the customer support use case - perhaps focusing on how companies can integrate ChatGPT/Bard into tools like Jira/ZenDesk to enable such workflows.
I think we can go one step beyond. It would probably help for ChatGPT to generate list of alternative use cases besides the customer support one, so that ChatGPT can generate tutorials or white papers focusing on how companies can integrate ChatGPT into their additional workflows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't. It isn't. It isn't. It is. We have no idea where that point is. It's worth comparing to where we were a century ago. That's where my kid will be when he's grown up compared to now.
Your kid will be grown up in less than 20 years, not 100. But even still, in 100 years, will there be 4x as many people? Will humanity be consuming 10x the energy that we do today? Will we have computers that are a million times faster? The point is, exponential progress is incredible, but at some point it ceases to be exponential. And the progress of the last 100 years was fueled by a exponential population growth a…
If you look at the direction, it's not predictable. A very different set of things will come to pass.
A child born today will live O(100 years), and will be in a very different world than I am today. Computation, in particular, is continuing to change. LLMs are a huge change, as is being interconnected, as are many other things. That's not "faster," like Moore's Law of yesteryear, but it is change.
Also: Change isn't always progress.