41–50 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That didn't work It worked in the British Post Office Scandal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
Since it's a scandal, it worked until it didn't. And AFAICT "the computer did it" wasn't the argument, it was "the computer did it so it must be correct because the experts said so".
I hope there can be some reasonable middle ground. I think in this case it's good the woman got her money. But Air Canada, presumably scared of what the next case might cost them decided to turn the chat bot off entirely. I think that's a bit unfortunate. I don't know what the solution looks like. Maybe some combination of courts only upholding "reasonable" claims by AI. And then insurance to cover the gaps?
If the company is not confident with the output of the chatbot or the liability then they should turn it off. All business decisions are based on assessing risk. Ultimately either insurance will need to step in or the company is willing to take the hit for mistakes their system makes because it saves them more money. This is how fraud protection it assessed with banks, credit cards etc. as well.
In this case this could have just been a $650 'bug bounty' had Air Canada issued a quick refund. A reasonable QA expense to find out that your AI agent is misleading your customers.
Here's the real punchline: > Experts told the Vancouver Sun that Air Canada may have succeeded in avoiding liability in Moffatt's case if its chatbot had warned customers that the information that the chatbot provided may not be accurate. Here's a glimpse into our Kafka-esque AI-powered future: every corporate lawyer is now making sure any customer service request will be gated by a chatbot containing a disclaimer li…
I hope there can be some reasonable middle ground. I think in this case it's good the woman got her money. But Air Canada, presumably scared of what the next case might cost them decided to turn the chat bot off entirely. I think that's a bit unfortunate. I don't know what the solution looks like. Maybe some combination of courts only upholding "reasonable" claims by AI. And then insurance to cover the gaps?
I don’t think failing to take adequate precautions is preventing AI tools from being used. I think this was plain corporate incompetence and greediness. They started using a system without properly testing it and don’t want to pay for the consequences.
What if Boeing says “Oops. We forgot to put the bolts that keeps the door in place but we shouldn’t be kept accountable for our actions”? The fact that they used a tool for it shouldn’t change the outcome unless we are going to create indemnity for big cooperations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forget about digital experiences for a moment. Forget entirely about chatbots. > Air Canada argues it cannot be held liable for information provided by one of its agents, servants, or representatives That includes EMPLOYEES. So they tried to argue that their employees can lie to your face to get you to buy a ticket under false pretense and then refuse to honor the promised terms? That's absolutely fucked.
I have had this happen in a sense. I once booked a flight to meet my then-fiancee in Florida on vacation. Work travel came up unexpectedly, and I booked my work travel from ORD > SFO > TPA. Before I made that booking, I called the airline specifically to ask them if skipping the ORD > TPA leg of my personal travel was going to cause me problems. The agent confirmed, twice that it would not. This was a lie. Buried in…
What do you use for recording your calls?
> "Air Canada argues it cannot be held liable for information provided by one of its agents, servants, or representatives—including a chatbot," Rivers wrote. "It does not explain why it believes that is the case" or "why the webpage titled 'Bereavement travel' was inherently more trustworthy than its chatbot." This is very reasonable-- AI or not, companies can't expect consumers to know which parts of their digital e…
Forget about digital experiences for a moment. Forget entirely about chatbots. > Air Canada argues it cannot be held liable for information provided by one of its agents, servants, or representatives That includes EMPLOYEES. So they tried to argue that their employees can lie to your face to get you to buy a ticket under false pretense and then refuse to honor the promised terms? That's absolutely fucked.
I'm glad to see that cases are starting to be decided about the liability of using AI generated content. This is something the general public should not need to second-guess.
Honestly LLMs aren’t ready for customer service. If I’m talking to a company I need to have a high degree of accuracy. LLMs are less accurate than trained humans.
I'm working on something to make this easier - reach out if I can be helpful (email in bio).