I just want to give a shoutout to BC's Civil Resolution Tribunal. They take their job seriously, and make it as easy as possible for plaintiff to submit a complaint.
I once had the misfortune of generating a batch of defective enterprise-grade SSD from a S company. That S company requires all RMA to go through the sales channel you bought the SSD from, but the sales company we used was out of business.
S has refused all attempts to RMA by stonewalling us saying that we need to return the drives thru the bankrupted company. When we explained that the company is bankrupted, S just ignored us. When we created a new RMA request, S's rep says we already have an open case, and that we need to return the drives blah blah blah.
After 5 months, in a fit of rage I typed up a 2000 words complaint, gathered all the emails/phone calls/photo evidences, and submitted a complaint to CRT ($75 fee). I wasn't expecting much, but within 3 weeks I got a call from a corporate lawyer in S company's Toronto office, asked me for the situation, apologized profusely, and asked if I can drop the case if they RMA all affected SSDs.
BC CRT is great when the happy pathway happens. They send legal letters to all parties so they are able to arbitrate, and that letter might be enough to get things resolved.
I had the misfortune of trying to use them for a company which had just stopped responding and in the end even though I did get the default judgment in my favour, actually enforcing the judgment still required me to go through the normal courts (which in my case was not worth the cost). But the process of dealing with CRT was nothing short of delightful.
Hmm, browsing through some of those cases, I'm starting to notice a pattern of Air Canada not taking these tribunal proceedings entirely seriously.
From this case:
> I find that if Air Canada wanted to a raise a contractual defense, it needed to provide the relevant portions of the contract. It did not, so it has not proven a contractual defence. [...]
> In its boilerplate Dispute Response, Air Canada denies “each and every” one of Mr. Moffatt’s allegations generally. However, it did not provide any evidence to the contrary.
> Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that [Air Canada] received the Dispute Notice and did not respond to it by the deadline set out in the CRT's rules.
> Based on the proof of notice form submitted by the applicant, I am satisfied that [Air Canada] received the Dispute Notice and did not respond to it by the deadline set out in the CRT's rules.
> In his statement, Mr. Mackoff described distinct conversations he had with each employee, provided the supervisor’s name, and submitted the diagram he drew while trying to explain to the employees how to count the 10 calendar days. As Mr. Mackoff’s witness statement includes so much detail, and as Air Canada has produced no contrary statement, I accept that Air Canada refused to transport both Mr. and Mrs. Mackoff on February 15, 2022 and so breached its contract with them.
In the case at hand, it sounds like they decided they wouldn't spend over $800 to avoid losing another $800. Which is reasonable, I suppose.
(But another constraint of the CRT is that you can't bring representation -- so while it was an Air Canada employee involved, it wasn't their legal team.)
I see a lot of stuff like that in civil litigation in David v. Goliath situations.
Usually the large entity puts in little effort and relies on the fact that its (much more expensive) lawyers generally have more sway with the court (judge), are more persuasive even when their arguments are nonsense, and can just drag cases on for years until the smaller party is burned out.
S is such a disaster that I have established a personal policy of staying away from S and never buying their things (TV fridges phones SSDs printers… anything they make). This policy has drastically improved my sanity. They produce expensive junk and have no regard for quality or security/privacy. I’d still buy things that have S components in them but not whole S devices.
Yes - my house (was) full of Samsung appliances - Stove, Fridge, Microwave, Washer, Dryer.
All garbage. They are all falling apart now or became became uneconomically repairable within 5 years. Every single appliance repair businesses I called flat out wouldn't touch the fridge for example.. Apparently they don't provide service information or parts to 3rd parties (at least for the fridge).
I have moved onto a different brand, but waiting to see if it's any more reliable..
When we were purchasing a clothes washer and dryer, Samsung had a special promotion. The sales rep at the store told us that the Samsung machines got the most complaints and she would recommend the LG machines. But we wanted that promotion, it was oh so nice. We bought a 5-year warranty just in case.
Sure enough, it's year 3 and the washer has stopped working. Repair guy came and decided he needs to order new parts to fix it. It's been a week or so without doing any laundry. Glad we purchased the extra warranty, but maybe we should have gone with the LG like the sales lady recommended.
Without knowing anything particular about Miele, all this anecdote suggests is that they were great thirty years ago. They could well have enshittified between now and then.
I'm at the point where I don't trust any brands at all anymore. The next time I need to make a major appliance purchase I'll buy a subscription to Consumer Reports and blindly follow their recommendation - I still trust them.
But isnt that the crux of the matter? You buy what consumer reports say, and the reviewers have no way of knowing if it will break down in 3 years. No one rates their gadget after three years so we have a massive blind spot where the best thing is still word of mouth.
My parents bought an Miele washing machine, rock solid even after pushing ten years.
Yeah, totally. That's where branding used to be a valuable signal, under the assumption that a company wouldn't deliberately choose to destroy their long-term value. I don't believe that anymore, so I'll place what remains of my trust in reviewers I know are independent (God help us all if it turns out CR is taking kick-backs or something) and figure know more about, say, washing machines than I do.
Apparently Miele has started to have quality issues. But they still might be a good bet, if only for the fact that they are (probably?) the last family run business in the market.
I did not know that! Thanks. Indeed, "family run", depending on where they are in the internal-to-the-family management-transition cycle, is more encouraging to me than "publicly held". ("Private equity" is always and everywhere a huge red flag.)
It's depressing to me that we have to think about those things. I mean, "buyer beware" has always been the case, but it seems like we have to be more wary (or more wary of more factors) than we did a decade or two ago. Or maybe I'm just getting older. I dunno.
"Capitalism" is very much in the eye of the beholder, and different regulatory models create market economies with different incentives. What you're talking about is "normal" in certain places.
I didn't mean that, though, and I don't think it's what the other people in this thread did, either. I was thinking of the practice whereby private equity funds purchase companies and exploit the "brand equity" they've built up over the long term, whilst deliberately enshittifying them, in order to make a short-term profit for the new owners. That's been normalized, in some places, but I wish it were not, and would prefer that financial markets be regulated in ways that make it un-profitable.
I also have had the same experience with my Samsung appliances. I paid top dollar for a nice looking set of laundry machines only to find out that they have garbage components inside of them that are bad by design.
I had a squeaking drier fixed under warranty, only to have the same issue reoccur multiple times, because the rollers are just junk. It needs a new set like clockwork every year and a half or so, I have the replacement procedure memorized now.
The washer seems to be allergic to water and soap. I keep the unit in a dry location, leveled and raised off of the floor, yet, the body of the unit is rusting out, the chrome finish on the door is peeling, and when I clean it, the cycle labels wipe right off the front panel. The pump has also failed due to rust on the motor.
Absolute trash. I probably would have been better off with a $400 top loader.
Happened to my ~2016 Samsung. Turns out a hose clamp wasn't properly installed and water was dripping onto the steel floorpan and rusting everything nearby.
I've also had to deal with their lack of Canadian RMA for 2 SSDs. Had to go back and forth with them and trying to convince Amazon and the Amazon seller to replace the defective drives.
Not buying any more Samsung memory products due to their essential non existent warranty in Canada
Buy through Memory Express if you've got a store nearby, just need to keep the receipt for the warranty period. They have a price matching policy for items that have the same SKU as well.
MemEx is an authorized dealer so they'll take it back and send it back to Samsung for warranty work if you buy from them.
Took about 5 months of endless back and forth to get them to replace a defective SSD in Australia too, despite very clear consumer law guarantees here obligating them to help. Absolutely hopeless company to deal with.
Seems like an abbreviation for a USD$400B+ company that manufactures SSDs, but with the commenter not specifically mentioning (presume, smartly, to avoid SLAPP lawsuit/libel).
Even as a smaller-government proponent, I've been a big proponent of things like the CRT.
One of the core functions of the government is enforcement of contracts. While there are the courts, they are out of reach for most people either due to skill level or financial constraints.
Having a simple, low cost, easily accessible way to resolve contract issues puts every member of society on a more even footing when it comes to economic interactions. If we're going to build our society based on capitalism and the ability for parties to enter into contracts for things like employment, buying/selling, housing, etc, having an efficient means to resolve disputes seems like a no-brainer.
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-binding, then what's the point of using the chat bot in the first place? If you can't trust it 99% of the time, or if the company says "use this, but nothing it says should be taken as fact", then why would i waste my time?
If a company is going to provide a tool, they should take responsibility for that tool.
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 brands I won't buy from again after having to jump through too many hoops to get (bad) warranty service.
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
I find it common for human customer support people to give inaccurate information. I don't know about "outright lying", but I've had people tell me things that are factually incorrect.
Depends. Saying "thing X should not fail" is factually incorrect, when you called because thing X failed.
However I would not expect an airline customer support to make up a completely fictional flight that has never existed. Maybe they could confuse flights or read a number wrong, but making one up?
Humans won't fabricate too much but when confronted with yes/no questions and they have a 50-50 shot of being right and any blowback will likely be on someone else....they'll answer whatever to get you out of their hair.
Case in point, I asked my bank if they had any FX conversion fees or markup. Guy said no. I asked if there was any markup on the spread. Said no. Guess what? They absolutely mark up that spread. Their exchange rates are terrible. Just because there isn't a line-item with a fee listed doesn't mean there isn't a hidden fee in there. He's either incompetent or a liar.
Maybe... Over two decades ago (holy crap, I'm old), I used to work in the call center for a major airline. I was the guy you got when you complained to the 1st level rep that you wanted their manager, then you got sent to the 2nd level rep and wanted their manager. And that was me.
90% of my job was undoing and compensating passengers for the incorrect information either the phone agent or gate agent gave them. The other 10% was dealing with workarounds to technical issues in our booking software.
> It's not like human call center staff has never given anyone wrong information, or cost companies money in fines and lawsuits.
If a company representative told me in writing (perhaps via email support) that I could claim a refund retroactively, and that turned out to not be their policy, I would still expect the company to honor what I was told in the email.
Phone calls are difficult more because there is no record of what was said. But if I had a recording of the phone call... I'm not actually sure what I would expect to happen. It's just so socially unusual to record phone calls.
> It's just so socially unusual to record phone calls.
Is it? I can not remember the last time I called some business where I did not get a “this call may be monitored or recorded for quality and training purposes…”. whatever perceived social hangups the company had they got over them and you don’t even need to ask in a 2PC jurisdiction, it’s already taken care of, just record the call.
Which implies most humans calling any form of customer service should probably have a local audio recording, because otherwise you're in a lopsided witness situation. Don't want there to be a recording? That call just happened to not be recorded. Notably, this is getting difficult anyway with how easy it is to manufacture vocal data.
Sure, but there is such a thing as “the human element”. Humans aren’t perfect, and that is the expectation. That is not the same case with computers.
And especially for something where it’s just pulling data from an internal system. There is absolutely no reason to invent made up information and saying “well humans do it all the time” is just an excuse.
On the phone with a customer service rep, I might understand a little wishy washy answer, slip of the tongue or slightly inaccurate statement. I've never really had a rep lie to me, usually its just I don't knows & them escalation as needed.
There is something about the written word from a company that makes it feel more like "binding statement".
It's still way too easy to send LLMs into a complete tangent of rambling incoherently, opening yourself up to the LLM making written statements to customers you really don't want.
I recently asked some LLMs "How many gallons in a mile?" and got some very verbose answers, which turned into feats of short story short stories when I refined to "How many gallons of milk in a mile?"
Only because the models have seemingly only been trained on generating text that matches a prompt, ie prompt completion. Rather than knowledge retrieval/parsing/organisation.
If part of the training was to only use knowledge sourced from a vector db and that it is allowed to use its trained knowledge only for grammar rules, phrasing or rewriting information then I think it would do a lot better.
Doesn't seem like many models are trained on prompts like "Question Q"->"[no data] I'm sorry but I don't know that" = accepted during training.
This would help immensely for not just for chatbots but for personal use too. I don't want my LLM assistant to invent a trip to Mars when I ask it "what do I have to do today" and my calendar happens to be empty.
To me that’s totally fine. I don’t even particularly care whether the LLM is better or not. The only thing they really matters is if you are gonna use that LLM, when it inevitably messes up you don’t get to claim that it wasn’t your fault because computers are hard and AI is an emerging field. IDGAF. Pay up. The fact that you dabble in emerging technologies doesn’t give you any excuse to provide lesser services
I think you're underestimating the quality of customer support. People are going to be out there testing every flaw in the support system, staffed or unstaffed. LLMs have no hope.
>that hallucinations will cost money in fines & lawsuits.
Sure. They are now out about $600. They probably already laid off 500+ customer service jobs costing conservatively 30k a year each. Not including mgmt,training,health,ect. I don't think it will make a difference to the ivory tower C levels. We will just all get used to a once again lower quality help/product. Another great "enshitification" wave of the future with "AI"
It also assumes that the customer service people dont make mistakes at a similar level anyway.
Another "new normal" How come anything that is "new normal" is never good?
> Another "new normal" How come anything that is "new normal" is never good?
If it allows them to reduce costs (and there's enough competition to force them to pass that on as reduced prices), I'm fairly happy with a new normal.
See also how air travel in general used to be a lot more glamorous, but also a lot more expensive.
Cynicism aside, air travel is one of the industries with pretty healthy levels of competition. (At least in Europe and South East Asia. I haven't spent much time in North America, so can't judge the market there.)
People love to hate eg RyanAir, but their effect on prices is felt throughout the industry; even if you never take a single RyanAir flight.
I wasn't referring to airlines specifically. I see how I was unclear now. We are in a decade+ era of record corporate profits yet incomes are stagnate and costs are rising.
Airlines are weird. I think warren buffet said something about airlines being the most complicated way to guarantee losing money as a business or something like that once.
Depends how long it takes to get the 600$ and whether you need to be a customer to get it. I know many people who would happily ask for that money once a week.
With RAG it's entirely possible to essentially eliminate 100% of hallucinations, given you are ok with responding with "I don't know" once in a while. These situations are likely coming from poorly implemented chatbot, or they decided that "I dont know" was not acceptable, and really that should be a queue to send you to a real human.
This claim seems wildly inaccurate, as even with GPT-4 in a single conversation thread with previous human-written answers included, a repeat of a similar question just resulted - in my testing today - in a completely hallucinated answer.
I think your claim might be based on anecdotal testing. (I used to have that same feeling after my first implementation of RAG)... Once you get a few thousand users running RAG-based conversations, you quickly see that it's "good enough to be useful", but far from being as dreamy as promised.
There are no guarantees with RAG either, and RAG only works when the answer to the question is already printed out somewhere explicitly in the text, otherwise it’s definitely prone to hallucinate
Yeah, RAG can't provide such guarantees. Moreover, even if the correct answer is printed somewhere, LLM+RAG still may produce wrong answer. Example from MS Copilot with GPT-4: https://sl.bing.net/ct6wwRjzkPc
It claims that OnePlus 6 has 6.4-inch display, but all linked pages actually claim that it's 6.28. Display resolution and aspect ratio are also wrong in the response.
do the people managing the chatbot know that though?
this shit gets sold as a way to replace employees with, essentially, just the middle manager that was over them, who is now responsible for managing the chatbot instead of managing people
while managers are often actually not great at people management, it's at least a somewhat intuitive skill for many. interacting with and directing other humans is something that many people are able to gain experience with outside of work, since it's a necessary life skill unless you're a hermit. furthermore, as a hedge against managerial ineptitude, humans are adaptable creatures that can recognize their manager's shortcomings and determine when and how to work around them to actually get the job done
understanding the intricacies training a machine learning system is a highly specialized and technical skill that nobody is going to pick up base knowledge for in the regular course of life. the skill floor for the average person tasked with it will be much lower than that of people management, and they will probably fuck up, a lot
the onus is ostensibly on AI system vendors to make their systems idiot-proof, but how many vendors actually do so past the point of "looks good enough to close the sale in a demo"? designing such a system is _incredibly_ hard, and the unfortunate reality is that if you try, you'll lose sales to snake oil salesmen who are content to push hokum trash with a fancy coat of paint.
these systems can work as a force multiplier in the hands of the capable, but work as an incompetence magnifier in the hands of the incapable, and there are plenty of dunning-krugerites lusting to magnify their incompetence
This initially sounded pretty good until I thought it through. Democratizing access to council and forcing troll lawyers to deal with trolling bots seems good but it will shape up like other spam arms races while legal systems gear up to deal with the ddos attacks. Good for spammers and most entrenched players, bad for the public at large.
Already we can’t manage to prosecute ex presidents in a timely manner before the next election cycle. If delays seem absurd now what will it be like when anything and everything remotely legal takes 10+ years and already sky-high costs triple?
Your selection of generative counsel has been confirmed.
Please do not navigate away from this page while the trial runs. You will receive a notification when the verdict has been reached. This may take up to a minute.
> then what's the point of using the chat bot in the first place?
The point is quite literally to make you give up trying to contact customer service and just pay them money, while getting their legal obligations as close to a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose situation as possible. That's not the mysterious part. The mysterious part is, why did they even let this drag into court for such a small sum?!
> "The mysterious part is, why did they even let this drag into court for such a small sum?!"
Because most people wouldn't bother taking it to court.
If they rolled over and paid up every time their chatbot made a mistake, that gets expensive, and teaches customers that they can easily be compensated if the chatbot screws up.
If they fight it tooth and nail and drag it all the way to court, it teaches customers that pursuing minor mistakes is personally painful and probably not worth it.
Scorched-earth defense tactics can be effective at deterring anyone from seeking redress.
It's the same fundamental reason why customer support is so hard to reach for many companies - if you make it painful enough maybe the customer will just not bother. A valuable tactic if your company imagines customers as annoying fleshy cash dispensers that talk too much. Having flown many times with Air Canada I can confirm that they do seem to perceive their passengers as annoying cash dispensers.
> Because most people wouldn't bother taking it to court.
Wait, couldn't they have tried to settle as soon as they realized it was actually going to court? I thought that was the modus operandi in the US... is it not a thing in Canada?
Well...they lost, and now it made the news. Are they going to keep the chatbot? Is the judge going to so lenient next time, now that there's precedent of wrongdoing?
To disincentivize anyone from calling them on their be in the future. If I know I will have to drag them through court just to get even a low payout I will be less likely to fight as its not worth the hassle.
Unfortunately, my impression is that human customer support often works just as well as a current-generation chatbot: They'll tell you what you want to hear, because they get rated by customer satisfaction. You get the survey, indicate that your request was resolved to your satisfaction, the agent gets their bonus... and a week later you realize everything you have been told was a lie.
This got so bad that when a customer support agent at Amazon genuinely resolved my issue well once, I was surprised that it actually worked out as promised.
Really depends on the company. Generally, for high quality on shore call centres, you do not use customer satisfaction as a metric for individual agents.
You’d use first contact resolution, average handle time, and their ability to stick to the flow they’re meant to (like transferring the customer to a survey after the call).
Like you say, satisfaction encourages lies. Much like sales commissions.
> 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'm trying to interact with a company and they direct me to a chatbot, I expect to get useful help 0% of the time, because if help was available via a mechanism on their site I would already have found it. I expect a chatbot to stall me as long as possible before either conceding that I need a human's assistance or telling me some further hoop to jump through to reach a real human.
I have a slightly higher expectation that first-line tech support can solve my problem if the problem is "you really should have had a self-service way to do this on your website but I'm sure you have a tool for this".
And if that isn't the case, I've mostly found that contrary to stereotype, many first-line tech support people are not such rote script-followers that they can't deal with skipping most of the script when the problem is obviously on their end and going to need real human intervention.
This is true of all LLMs: you cannot trust a single thing they say. Everything needs to be checked - from airline fee information to code.
I expect we'll see this sort of thing a lot more in the future, and probably a bit of a subsequent reversal of all of the sackings of humans once the issues (... and legal liability!) becomes clearer to people.
Agree there. I put 99% as even human reps sometimes get it wrong, but in my experience whenever a human agent has made a mistake and relayed wrong info, the company would take appropriate steps to meet me at least half way.
Would this situation have been handled differently if a human support rep gave them incorrect information? I suspect they would have honored it and then put the rep (or all reps) through more training.
Another thought experiment: If a portion of the company's website was at least partially generated with an LLM, does that somehow absolve the company of responsibility for the content they have on their own site?
I think a company is free to present information to their customers that is less than 100% accurate -- whether by having chatbots or by doing something else silly like having untrained, poorly-paid support reps -- but they have to live with the risks (being liable for mistakes; alienating customers) to get the benefits (low operating cost).
If a human customer support person told me something and I made purchases based on that, and it turned out they lied, yeah I'd want recompense for that as well. You're allowed to be wrong (AI or human), you just have to face consequences for it.
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".
"In an argument that appeared to flabbergast a small claims adjudicator in British Columbia, the airline attempted to distance itself from its own chatbot's bad advice by claiming the online tool was "a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions."
"This is a remarkable submission," Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) member Christopher Rivers wrote.""
IANAL, but it's astounding they took that as their defense, rather than pointing to a line (I hope?) in their ToS that says "This agreement is the complete terms of service, and cannot be amended or changed by any agent or representative of the company except by ... (some very specific process the bot can't follow)". I've seen this mentioned in several ToSs, I expect it to be standard boilerplate at this point ...
That does make sense, but on the flipside, let's say that they start advertising discounts on TV, but when people try to pay the reduced rate they say "according to our ToS that TV ad was not authorized to lower the price".
Obviously that wouldn't fly. So why would it fly with the AI chatbot's advertising discounts?
You'd normally expect a TV ad to be authorized to make offers.
You wouldn't normally expect an AI chatbot to be authorized to make offers. Its purpose is to try to answer common questions and it has been widely covered in popular media that they hallucinate etc.
I disagree. I expect any credible offer a company makes in an advertisement, on its website, using a chatbot, or through a customer service agent to be authorized by the company. Surely a corporation with lots of resources knows better than to program a chatbot to make fake offers; they'd get sued.
And they did get sued. Next time maybe they'll make sure software they connect to their website is more reliable.
> Surely a corporation with lots of resources knows better than to program a chatbot to make fake offers; they'd get sued.
They didn't program it to do that, it's a characteristic of the technology that it makes mistakes. Which is fine as the public learns not to blindly trust its answers. It seems silly to assume that people won't be able to figure that out. People are capable of learning how new things work.
This is like the people who set the cruise control in their car when it first came out and then climbed into the back of the car to take a nap. That's not how it works and the technology isn't in a state where anybody knows how to do better.
I agree with your cruise control analogy in a sense, but I think it's Air Canada that's misusing the technology, not the customer. If they try to replace customer service agents with chatbots that lie, they need to be prepared to pay for the results. I'm glad they're not allowed to use such unreliable, experimental technologies in their airplanes (737 Max notwithstanding).
There's absolutely a technology available to make a chatbot that won't tell lies: connect a simple text classifier to a human-curated knowledge base.
> If they try to replace customer service agents with chatbots that lie, they need to be prepared to pay for the results.
The result would be a de facto ban on AI chatbots, because nobody knows how to get them not to make stuff up.
> I'm glad they're not allowed to use such unreliable, experimental technologies in their airplanes (737 Max notwithstanding).
If you use unreliable technology in an airplane, it falls out of the sky and everybody dies. If you use it in a chatbot, the customer can e.g. go to the company's website to apply for the discount it said exists and discover that it isn't there, and then be mildly frustrated in the way that customers commonly are when a company's technology is imperfect. It's not the same thing.
> There's absolutely a technology available to make a chatbot that won't tell lies: connect a simple text classifier to a human-curated knowledge base.
But then it can only answer questions in the knowledge base, and customers might prefer an answer which is right 75% of the time and can be verified either way in five minutes than to have to wait on hold to talk to a human being because the less capable chatbot couldn't answer their question and the more capable one was effectively banned by the government's liability rules.
> The result would be a de facto ban on AI chatbots, because nobody knows how to get them not to make stuff up.
If, instead of a chatbot, this was about incompetent support reps that lied constantly, would you make the same argument? "We can't hire dirt-cheap low-quality labor because as company representatives we have to do what they say we'll do. It's so unfair"
It isn't supposed to be a company representative, it's supposed to be a chatbot.
If Microsoft puts ChatGPT on Twitter so people could try it, and everybody knows that it's ChatGPT, and then it started offering companies free Windows licenses, why should they have to honor that? It's obvious why it might do that but the purpose of letting people use it wasn't so it could authorize anything.
If the company holds a conference where it allows third party conference speakers to give talks, which everybody knows are third parties and not company employees, should the guest speakers be able to speak for the company? Why would that accomplish anything other than the elimination of guest speakers?
> The result would be a de facto ban on AI chatbots
No, the result would be a de facto ban on using them as a replacement for customer service agents. I support that for the time being since AI chatbots can't actually do that job yet because we don't know how to keep them from lying.
They could put a disclaimer on it of course. To be sufficiently truthful, the disclaimer would need to be front and center and say something like "The chat bot lies sometimes. It is not authorized to make any commitments on behalf of the company no matter what it says. Always double-check anything it tells you."
> No, the result would be a de facto ban on using them as a replacement for customer service agents.
But what does that even mean? If Ford trains a chatbot to answer questions about cars purely for entertainment purposes, or to get people excited about cars, a customer could still use it for "customer service" just by asking it questions about their car, which it might very well be able to answer. But it would also be capable of making up warranty terms etc., so you've just banned that thing and anything like it.
> I support that for the time being since AI chatbots can't actually do that job yet because we don't know how to keep them from lying.
It's pretty unlikely we could ever keep them from lying. We can't even get humans to do that. The best you could do is keep them on a script, which is the exact thing that makes people hate existing human customer service reps who can't help them because it isn't in the script.
> To be sufficiently truthful, the disclaimer would need to be front and center and say something like "The chat bot lies sometimes. It is not authorized to make any commitments on behalf of the company no matter what it says. Always double-check anything it tells you."
Which is exactly what's about to start happening, if that actually works. But that's as pointless as cookie banners and "this product is known to the State of California to cause cancer".
It's all in how it's presented and should not be up to the customer or end-user to understand how technology running on the company's server, which might be changed at any time might behave unreliably.
I expect something that's presented as customer service not to lie to me about the rebate policy. As long as what it says is plausible, I expect the company to be prepared to cover the cost of any mistakes, especially if the airline only discovers the mistake after I've paid them and taken a flight. Compensating customers for certain types of errors is a normal cost of doing business for airlines, and the $800 CAD this incident cost the airline is not an exorbitant amount. The safety valve here is that judges and juries do test against whether a reasonable person would believe a stated offer or policy; I can't trick a chatbot into offering me a billion dollars for nothing and get a court to hold a company to it.
If Ford presents a chatbot as entertainment and makes it really clear at the start of a session that it doesn't guarantee the factual accuracy of responses, there's no problem. If they present it as informational and don't make a statement like that, or hide it in fine print, then it says something like "the 2024 Mustang Ecoboost has more horsepower than the Chevrolet Corvette and burns less gas than the Toyota Prius", they should be on the hook for false advertising to the customer and unfair competition against Chevrolet and Toyota.
Similarly, if Bing or Google presents a chatbot as an alternative to their search engine for finding information on the internet, and it says "Zak's photography website is full of CSAM", I'm going to sue them for libel.
> The safety valve here is that judges and juries do test against whether a reasonable person would believe a stated offer or policy; I can't trick a chatbot into offering me a billion dollars for nothing and get a court to hold a company to it.
Sure, but a billion people could each trick it into offering them $100, which would bankrupt the airline.
> they should be on the hook for false advertising to the customer and unfair competition against Chevrolet and Toyota.
But all you're really doing is requiring everyone to put a banner on everything that says "for entertainment purposes only". Because if something like that gets them out of the liability then that's what everybody is going to do. And if it doesn't then you're effectively banning the technology, because "have it not make stuff up" isn't a thing they know how to do.
Courts probably aren't going to enforce any promise of money for nothing or responses prompted by obvious trickery, but they might enforce promises of discounts, and are very likely to enforce promises of rebates as the court in this case did.
If that means companies can't use chatbots to replace customer service agents yet, so be it.
> Courts probably aren't going to enforce any promise of money for nothing or responses prompted by obvious trickery, but they might enforce promises of discounts, and are very likely to enforce promises of rebates as the court in this case did.
But what does that matter? So someone posts on Reddit how to trick the chatbot into offering a rebate and then 75% of their customers have done it by the time they realize what's going on and now they're out of business.
> If that means companies can't use chatbots to replace customer service agents yet, so be it.
You're still not articulating any way to distinguish "customer service" from any other functioning chatbot. A general purpose chatbot will answer customer service questions, so how does this not just ban all of them?
And if I saw that disclaimer, I wouldn't use the tool. What's the point if you can't trust what it says. Just let me talk to a human that can solve my issue.
> What's the point if you can't trust what it says. Just let me talk to a human that can solve my issue.
That's the point of it -- you don't have to wait on hold for a human to get your answer, and you could plausibly both receive it and validate it yourself sooner than you could get through to a human.
> They didn't program it to do that, it's a characteristic of the technology that it makes mistakes
It sounds like you meant to say that they didn’t _intentionally_ program it to do that. They didn’t find the system under a rock and unleash it on the world; they made it.
I would expect that if I was talking to an official tool that the company provides to interact with to be authorized to give me information (including discounts and offers) to be accurate and true.
> Its purpose is to try to answer common questions
Yes. And therefore people should be able to assume that the answers are correct.
Some people have heard of ChatGPT, and some of those have heard that they hallucinate, sure. But that's still not that many people. And they don't know that a question answering chat bot like this is the same technology!
If I am trying to interact with a company and they tell me to use 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, then what's the point of using the chat bot in the first place? If you can't trust it 99% of the time, or if the company says "use this, but nothing it says should be taken as fact", then why would i waste my time?
This is why I’m a bit vexed by all the hype around LLMs. It reminds me of talking to a friend’s mother who was suffering from dementia - she could have a perfectly lucid conversation with you and then segue into stories that were obviously fictions that existed only within her head. She was a nice lady, but not someone who you would hire to represent your company; she was considered disabled.
Awhile back another commenter called them a “demented Clippy” which about sums them up for me.
Yeah totally. LLMs have a lot of awesome use cases. But as chatbots, they need a lot of guardrails, and even then, I'm highly skeptical if they improve the experience over a simple searchable FAQs or docs.
> If I have to double-triple check elsewhere to make sure that the chatbot is correct, then what's the point of using the chat bot in the first place?
Because you can ask it a question in natural language and it will give you an answer you can type into a search engine to see if it's real. Before you didn't know the name of the thing you were looking for, now you do.
> If you can't trust it 99% of the time, or if the company says "use this, but nothing it says should be taken as fact", then why would i waste my time?
The rate at which it makes stuff up isn't 99%, is the point. For common questions, better than half of the answers have some basis in reality.
Of course language models can't be trusted, but it's not the customer's problem to think about chatbot's purpose, how it's implemented and whether it hallucinates or not.
If it was approved by the company, yes. But you wouldn't want Braniff Airlines to put out an ad for SouthWest Airlines advertising rock bottom lifetime tickets and have those be valid...
How do those clauses actually work? If a rep does something nice for you (like give you something for free), could the airline say it never agreed to that in writing or whatever and demand it back? How are you supposed to know if a rep has authority to enter into an agreement with you over random matters?
But, to your question, my guess is that would basically be telling people not to avoid their chatbot, which they don't want to do.
What you are or aren't entitled to is written down in the terms of service. Support agents can only help interpret the terms for you. They may be authorized to go beyond that to some degree, but the company will also have the right to reverse the decision made by the agent.
I guess the original issue pointed by the judge would still stand: how am I supposed to know which terms are to be assumed true and valid? Why would I assume a ToS hidden somewhere (Is it still valid? does it apply to my case? Is it relevant and binding to my jurisdiction?) is to be considered more trustworthy than an Air Canada agent?
How is that enforceable? In many cases this is carte blanche for company representatives to lie to you. No one is going to read the ToS and cross reference it with what they're being told in real time. Moreover, if a customer was familiar with the ToS they would not be asking questions like this of a chatbot. The entire idea of having a clause like this while also running a "help" chatbot that can contradict it seems like bad faith dealing.
Those ToS statements overreach their capabilities a lot of the time. They're ammunition against the customer, but don't always hold up in the legal system.
Beyond the chatbot's error and the legal approach they took, this bad PR could have been avoided by any manager in the chain doing the right thing by overriding things and just giving him the bereavement fare (and then fixing the bot/updating the policy).
The claim is so outrageous that I wish there were a way (I assume there probably isn't) for the company or the lawyers to have been sanctioned outside what the plaintiff was asking for.
And if a random AC employee said[0] they'd give you a billion dollars, you wouldn't be entitled to it because any judge or jury hearing the case would say a reasonable person wouldn't believe that. Unlike computers, which do exactly what they're told[1], the legal system applies sanity checks and social context.
[0] perhaps because they're disgruntled and trying to hurt their employer
[1] generative models are not an exception; they're a way of telling computers to generate text that sometimes contains falsehoods
> And if a random AC employee said[0] they'd give you a billion dollars, you wouldn't be entitled to it because any judge or jury hearing the case would say a reasonable person wouldn't believe that.
I'm sure that if the bot had said that the airline would raise your dead relative from the grave and make you king of the sky or something equally unbelievable the courts wouldn't have insisted Air Canada cast a crown and learn necromancy.
>If a random AC employee gave you a free flight, on the other hand, you'd be entitled to it.
The company would be entirely within their rights to say 'this employee was wrong, that is not our policy, goodbye!'. This happens all the time with more minor incidents.
No idea about the US but this very same case was tested in France and some part of Germany in the late 90s when some PayTVs (Sky or Canal+, can't remember) tried to cancel multiple subscriptions offered with an extremely aggressive pricing by some of their agents. Courts concluded that the signed agreements superseded the official pricing and they had to offer the service for the entire length of the original subscription.
Where I live, "meeting of the minds" is necessary for a contract. Written or not. In this case, that meeting didn't happen. Due to the bullshit generator employed by Air Canada.
So there was no contract but a consumed flight. The court has to retroactively figure out a reasonable contract in such cases. That Air Canada couldn't just apply the reduced rate once they learned of their wrong communication marks them as incredibly petty.
That's far less likely to be true if the customer buys something based on the employee's erroneous statement. I suspect in an otherwise-identical case with a human customer service agent, the same judge would have ruled Air Canada must honor the offer.
A random AC employee who is having a bad day and hates his employer says "You are entitled to free flights for the rest of your life." Is Air Canada liable?
No, because that's not "reasonable". My dad jokes that he's made a career off of determining what is "reasonable" and what isn't, and he's a contract attorney.
If you were standing at the customer service desk, and instead they said: "sorry about the delay, your next two flights are free", then all of a sudden this is "reasonable".
No, because no reasonable person would think that they had the authority to authorize that. Remember, the legal system is not computer code - judges look at things like intent and plausibility.
>How is this different from me getting one of my friends to work at Air Canada and promise me a billion dollars to cancel my flight?
There is a common misconception about law that software engineers have. Code is not law. Law is not code. Just because something that looks like a function exists, you can't just plug in any inputs and expect it to have a consistent outcome.
The difference between these two cases is that even if a chat bot promised that, the judge would throw it out, because it's not reasonable. Also, the firm would have a great case against at least the CS rep for this collusion.
If your friend of a CS agent promised you a bereavement refund (As the chatbot did), even though it went against company policy, you'd have good odds of winning that case. Because the judge would find it reasonable of you to believe and expect that after speaking to a CS rep, that such a policy would actually get honored. (And the worst that would happen to the CS rep would be termination.)
Law and justice is not like a computer program that you can exploit and control without limits by being a hacker.
If the chatbot told them that they'd get a billion dollars, the courts would not hold Air Canada responsible for it, just as if a programmer put a decimal wrong and prices became obviously wrong. In this case, the chat bot gave a policy within reason and the court awarded the passenger what the bot had promised, which is a completely correct judgement.
This argument seems overly dramatic and distorted. Yes, in an outrageous situation like a billion-dollar mishap, most people would know something isn't right. But for a policy that appears legitimate, especially when it's replacing a human customer service rep, it's not that obvious. In these cases, Air Canada should definitely be held accountable.
These ones do what they "learned" from a lot of input data using a process that is us mimicking how we think brains could maybe function (kinda/sort off with a few unbiological "improvements").
Say your webserver isn't scaling to more than 500 concurrent users. When you add more load, connections start dropping.
Is it because someone programmed a max_number_of_concurrent_users variable and a throttleExtraAboveThresholdRequests() function?
No.
Yes, humans built the entire stack of the system. Yes every part of it was "programmed", but no this behaviour wasn't programmed intentionally, it is an emergent property arising from system constraints.
Maybe the database connection pool is maxed out and the connections are saturating. Maybe some database configuration setting is too small or the server has too few file handles - whatever.
Whatever the root cause (even though that cause incidentally was implemented by a human if you trace the causal chain back far enough) this behaviour is an almost incidental unintended side effect of that.
A machine learning system is like that, but more so.
An LLM, say, is "parsing" language in some sense, but ascribing what it is doing to human design is pretty indirect.
In a way you typing words at me has in some way been "programmed" into you by every language interaction mankind has had with you.
I guess you could see it that way, but I don't think it's a particularly useful point of view.
In the same way an LLM has been in directly "programmed" via it's model architecture, training algorithm and training data, but we are nowhere near the understanding of the process to be able to consider this "programming" it yet.
This is different from a bug or hitting an unknown limitation—the selling point of this was “it makes shit up” and they went “yeah, cool, let’s have it speak for us”.
Its behavior incorporates randomness and is unpredictable and hard to keep within bounds on purpose and they decided to tell a computer to follow that unpredictable instruction set and place it in a position of speaking for the company, without a human in between. They shouldn’t have done that if they didn’t want to end up in this sort of position.
We agree that this is an engineering failure - you can't deploy an LLM like this without guardrails.
This is also a management failure in badly evaluating and managing the risks of a new technology.
We disagree in that I don't think that its behaviour being hard to predict is on purpose: we have a new technology that shows great promise as tool to work with language input and outputs. People are trying to use LLMs as general purpose language processing machines - in this case as chat agents.
I'm reacting to your comment specifically because I think you are evaluating LLMs using a mental model derived from normal software failures and LLMs or ML models in general are different enough to make that model ineffective.
I almost fully agree with your last comment, but the
> they decided to tell a computer to follow that unpredictable instruction set
reflects what I think is now an unfruitful model.
Before deploying a model like this you need safeguards in place to contain the unpredictability. Steps like the following would have been options:
* Fine-tuning the model to be more robust over their expected input domain,
* Using some RAG scheme to ground the outputs over some set of ground truths,
* Using more models to evaluate the output for deviations,
* Business processes to deal with evaluations and exceptions,
Etc
No, if you conspire with your friend to get them to tell you an incorrect policy, then you have no reasonable expectation that what they tell you is the real policy. If you are promised a billion dollars even without a pre-existing relationship with the agent, you have no reasonable expectation that what they are promising is the real policy because it's an unbelievably large amount.
If you are promised something reasonable by an agent of the company who you are not conspiring with, then the company is bound to follow through on the promise because you do have a reasonable expectation that what they are telling you is the real policy.
The chatbot instructed the passenger to pay full price for a ticket but stated they could get a refund later. That refund policy was a hallucination. The victim her just walked away with a discounted ticket as promised not a billion dollars.
Because that would not be reasonable, and nobody would be surprised if Air Canada reneged on that. See, for instance, Leonard vs. PepsiCo.
If your friend promised you something reasonable in the course of carrying out their duties, and you honestly believed them, I think that would be legal and enforceable just as this case suggests.
> How is this different from me getting one of my friends to work at Air Canada
One major difference is the AI wasn't your friend, another is that you didn't get it hired at Air Canada, another is that the promise wasn't $1B, etc...
Your friend is not trained by Air Canada. The bot is Air Canada property.
If they decide it is reliable enough to be put in front of the customer, they must accept all the consequences: the benefits like having to hire less, and the cons, which is that they have to make it work correctly.
Otherwise, woopsy, we made our AI handle our accounting and it cheated, sorry IRS. That won't fly.
No, it is more similar to Air Canada hiring a monkey to push buttons to handle customer complaints. In that case, the company knows (or should know) that the given information may be wrong, but accepts the risk.
People working for companies are sometimes separate legal entities responsible for their own actions, and sometimes they act on behalf of the company they work for and the company is responsible for their actions. It depends.
A chatbot(computer) cannot be responsible for their own actions so the only half of the coin you have left is "the company is responsible for their actions."
Computers are inanimate objects and are not recognized as legal entities.
The legal system recognizes that people, or groups of people, are subject to legal authority. This is a story about a piece of software Air Canada implemented which resulted in them posting erroneous information on their website.
So replacing all their customer support staff with AI that misleads customers is OK? That's pants on head insane, so why spend time trying to justify it.
Good. Company outsources customer “service” to a completely unreliable piece of software, which goes to show how much they care about their customers. And then they argue in court that customers shouldn’t even trust their own software! So essentially they have increased profits by cutting customer service jobs, replaced humans with a stochastic parrot, and now don’t want to be responsible for the drawbacks of this decision. They want all of the upside and none of the downside.
Fortunately, the tribunal rejected that tactic in this instance.
The chatbot included a link to the detailed rules, which contradicted what the chatbot told the customer.
> "While a chatbot has an interactive component, it is still just a part of Air Canada’s website ... It should be obvious to Air Canada that it is responsible for all the information on its website ... There is no reason why Mr. Moffatt should know that one section of Air Canada’s webpage is accurate, and another is not."
I really hope that wouldn’t get them out of it. In that case, Air Canada would still be misrepresenting their policies. Misrepresenting Air Canada policies to induce a purchase of a ticket may not legally be fraud, but it certainly feels like it should be. It’s also hard for me to see how that argument would square with this reasoning from the article:
> "While Air Canada argues Mr. Moffatt could find the correct information on another part of its website, it does not explain why the webpage titled 'Bereavement travel' was inherently more trustworthy than its chatbot. It also does not explain why customers should have to double-check information found in one part of its website on another part of its website," he wrote.
Those are your basic rights: You entered into a contract with the airline, and the airline failed to deliver. Of course you get your money back if the alternative solution is not satisfactory - whether or not the ticket was refundable doesn't even enter into it, as it was the airline that failed to deliver in the first place. That's not stellar service, that's just fulfilling their legal obligations.
I am not sure which airline represent your average experience; but in my experience, almost all airlines will fight to "your death" not to give you anything back. In the times they do (especially European), it's because there is a law that requires them to.
I think the point being made: It was refunded very quickly and without hassle. Other, less scrupulous / ethnical airlines were try more tactics to redirect to worse flight or delay refund (if at all -- "oh, it was a lost in our system").
Oman Air is trying to offer good service in a tight, extremely cut-throat market (the Middle-East) where its competitors are giants (Qatar and Emirates) or cash drunk (Saudi Airlines).
I flew through them last year. Check-in was a bit of a hassle but the plane/service and the layover were great. The price was very competitive (cheapest) and yet the plane was empty. I expected them to either fold or downsize.
Yeah; this should've been well within some second-tier customer service manager's discretionary refund budget. Instead they've got a precedent-setting ruling that makes the chatbot a huge liability.
I think eventually courts will decide that whatever a chatbot or employee says while working for the company is binding on the company, as long as there was no malicious intent on either the part of the employee or the customer.
Probably not "whatever", but anything that passes a "reasonableness" standard. It's totally reasonable to expect that if an airline offers bereavement fares that you could file the paperwork a month later because, like, there's a lot going on if you need a bereavement fare and getting the paperwork together can take time.
There are lots of things that an employee might say that would not be reasonable, even if they had no malicious intent.
Yeah, reasonableness is the usual requirement in law unless otherwise specified. The ruling we're talking about here uses reasonableness several times:
"Generally, the applicable standard of care requires a company to take reasonable care to ensure their representations are accurate and not misleading."
"I find Air Canada did not take reasonable care to ensure its chatbot was accurate."
"Mr. Moffatt says, and I accept, that they relied upon the chatbot to provide accurate information. I find that was reasonable in the circumstances."
What is described here do happen when employees send mails with explicit promises, but gets harder when only the company has proof of the exchange (recording of the call). Chatbots bridge that gap.
Some people do record calls to companies. I choose to understand "Calls may be recorded" as permission and say "Thank you", even if perhaps that's not always how it was intended. When calling small very sketchy companies (such as my last landlord before I bought somewhere to live) I ask for permission and hang up if they refuse. Oh you don't want your words recorded? Fine, you're getting a letter, hope you weren't in a hurry.
But Chat Bots often provide a "Save transcript" feature, or even default to emailing you a copy if you're in a Customer Service type environment where it knows your email. So those are both a lot easier than setting up call recording.
Yes. iOS and default android are really doing a disservice by blocking call recording when in this day and age most real phone calls are done towards corporations or non private settings.
This is an appropriate outcome, in my view. I'm as pro-AI as they come. But I also recognize that without a clear standard of service delivery, and in an industry inundated with M&A instead of competition, that a chatbot isn't a helpful thing but a labor cost reduction initiative.
I hope they do become huge liabilities as it's irresponsible. I'm as excited as the next guy about the future, but companies shoehorning terrible "AI" to replace support channels is infuriating. The -only- good interaction I've had with a chatbot was the one Amazon uses or used to use, where you could click from a few options, and it'd just issue you a refund.
And the issue here was purely procedural - we aren't talking about some damage they refuse to pay for, but merely some customer using the 'incorrect' process to claim something they are eligible for.
The problem with Canadian airlines (and Canadian companies in general), is that if you don't like the service there aren't really any meaningful alternatives. The two largest carriers have a near total stranglehold on the market (+75%) of flights. They practically have zero incentive to improve because they are propped up by protectionist Canadian policies that prevent foreign companies coming in with any meaningful competition. Their main competitor WestJet is similarly bad. Story of the Canadian economy really
I think they weren't worried about those few hundred bucks so much as precedent resulting in some future liability of millions of dollars when their chatbot misinforms tens of thousands of customers about something.
On the other hand, if they had quietly offered a one-time policy exception before reaching the point of a court verdict, they would have avoided any kind of precedent.
Probably because they felt confident they could set a precedent would be my guess.
Of course the argument is absurd, but this is exactly where companies like this would love to go. Virtually free support staff that incur the company absolutely no liability whatsoever.
Maybe companies are so used to their $multimillion dollar legal teams winning against broke Average Joes that their legal departments are starting to just assume that it will always happen and that all court precedents are going to be favorable. They've been sniffing their own farts for so long they think it's fresh air.
Mostly all the expensive procedures aren't allowed, there isn't a jury so it moves faster, and in some places lawyers aren't allowed in court even to represent a business.
It's a signal that the company has internally configured itself in such a way as to insulate the administrative section from the operational section. They've likely done this in an effort to avoid the types of information that would force them to spend money.
It's literally just corporate ignorance as a business strategy. What's sad is, on the large, it works in their favor.
In any case, it's an equally good signal that you don't want to fly with them.
We just bailed them out too. And covid relief. And they have the worst customer complaint resolution record of all the airlines. You can't get them to do shit, they just take take take. It's a national embarrassment, right next to mobile data and internet. Yet our hockey teams play in arenas named after them, with their logo on their sweaters.
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.
They may consider precedent rulings as factors in the decision, but those earlier rulings themselves do not automatically become law for all future cases on the same subject.
Not quite that simple. The word we use is jurisprudentie but it means the same. Opening up the Dutch Wikipedia article and clicking on the English version of the article with thst name, you end up with "Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is a law that is based on precedents"
I dove into this when I first heard of the difference between continental law and common law, and found it to be mostly a matter of wording. The principles are opposite but the effects very similar. It's not as though common law countries have no politicians making legislation, or as though there is no precedence in continental law countries.
Dutch foundational law (I think the very first article) says "everyone is treated equally given equal circumstances": such an equality principle would be incompatible with different rulings in identical situations. I imagine most countries have equality as a foundational principle, hence I'd be interested to learn: In which country would rulings not set precedence?
Precendent rulings and legislations are separate things in civil law countries. Not separating them is how the U.S. got the Roe v. Wade fiasco.
No two court cases are completely identical. Precedents are an important reference but they themselves do not automatically decide the outcome in civil law jurisdictions
Yeah seems really dumb to let it get that far. I wonder if they tried to settle, but Mofatt/lawyer (I would guess it's either small claims or a pro bono thing?) refused, preferring the publicity?
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, and nothing more.
AI is cool, but the spoils are going to go to staggeringly few people and in most of the West there are no real safety nets for people to fall on.
If I lost my job tomorrow to AI then any desk job I aim for might be gone in another 2-3 years, before I even finish retraining.
Any content creation is going to be flooded out and most creators don't even make any money even today. It's a marketing role with strong Pareto distributions.
That mainly leaves physical labor and person to person jobs.
I would say great, freedom from labour, except that's not how it works.
Automation improvements increase employment/wages by increasing productivity. Conversely not doing it reduces them, because you become less competitive vs other countries that are doing it.
Its because the stakes have fallen just that low. Its a chat bot we are talking about. Those have been terrible since forever. Retooling your junk tool with the new popular junk tool at least signals to your shareholders you are willing to keep up with the joneses on the latest stupid thing, without much risk to your actual product at least not yet.
Our company is on the way to ‘ease’ the work for the customer by having them write a whole story to replace 4 buttons. We’ll have the AI figure out which of the four buttons need to be pressed based on the text.
I keep wondering how this could possibly be superior to just showing the 4 buttons…
How does using a computer suddenly wash away any responsibility? Like if Air Canada's desk agents were all a separate company and they told the guy the wrong information isn't Air Canada still on the hook for training their sub-contractors?
At the end of the day humans make these screwups too (even in my own anecdotal experiences with dealing with airlines), and it doesn’t matter because there is no hook to be on in the first place. If they tell me x and come to find out the policy is actually y, I’m the one thats shit out of luck and should have done the due dilligence of thoroughly reading whatever legalese this is scrawled in. These ais are at least highlighting there are many segments of customer facing interactions where it just doesn’t affect the bottom line how poorly you treat these people. Flights especially are a captive audience, considering how airlines lord over their schedules and gate positions, where especially outside major airports there might not be any redundant options for you beyond one flight.
> If they tell me x and come to find out the policy is actually y, I’m the one thats shit out of luck and should have done the due dilligence of thoroughly reading whatever legalese this is scrawled in.
Why are you saying this as a comment to an article where literally the opposite thing happened?
>it just seems so sloppy compared to software of the past
Corporate software has always been sloppy especially if said corporation isn't centered around said software (true for Air Canada)) and the technology is in an early adopter stage (true for LLM chatbots).
The decision makers aren't well-versed in these technologies themselves, because getting to where they are did not require knowing how to properly use those technologies.
It's just proof companies don't care. The quicker they can turn their customers into little autonomous compute nodes, the better from their perspective.
I have also noticed an increase in automated call systems just flat out hanging up on me. As in: "We're experiencing higher than normal call volumes and cannot accept your call. Please call at a different time. Goodbye. <click>" How am I supposed to get help in such cases?
We've allowed companies to scale beyond their means, and they're getting away with more and more.
UPS destroyed a suitcase of ours and basically told us to go f ourselves. We could have sued in small claims court, but that's what they're betting on, that most people just give up.
And the chatbots are just terrible. And these days, the human representatives available have even less information than what the chatbots are provided with.
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 key word is “once.” The doom of american society will not be in the timespan of a single business quarter. And on top of that the short position improves the whole way down. People at the top of the economy aren’t concerned about the rag being wrung dry because they will be the ones doing it, which will give them such a lopsided resource advantage it hardly will matter to them what happens next for the rest of us.
Economies aren't about "resources" or "wringing things dry", they are about trading. If you're not trading you don't have an economy and you aren't rich.
>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.
They don't have any wealth in the system you're projecting.
Wealth is the ability to trade with people. If there were somehow only 10 "employed" people in the world, then the economy is 10 people big, which means none of them are wealthy.
One way to see that this scenario is absurd is that it's literally the plot of Atlas Shrugged.
I once had the misfortune of generating a batch of defective enterprise-grade SSD from a S company. That S company requires all RMA to go through the sales channel you bought the SSD from, but the sales company we used was out of business.
S has refused all attempts to RMA by stonewalling us saying that we need to return the drives thru the bankrupted company. When we explained that the company is bankrupted, S just ignored us. When we created a new RMA request, S's rep says we already have an open case, and that we need to return the drives blah blah blah.
After 5 months, in a fit of rage I typed up a 2000 words complaint, gathered all the emails/phone calls/photo evidences, and submitted a complaint to CRT ($75 fee). I wasn't expecting much, but within 3 weeks I got a call from a corporate lawyer in S company's Toronto office, asked me for the situation, apologized profusely, and asked if I can drop the case if they RMA all affected SSDs.
That day was great, to say the least.
Aside:
The CRT posts all their cases (that reached arbitration) here- https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/en/nav.do
Reading the cases is quite am entertaining time passer.