this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
287 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

60349 readers
6352 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
enu
technopagan
287
Air Canada must honor refund policy invented by airline’s chatbot (arstechnica.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/technology
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 44 points 10 months ago (1 children)

According to Air Canada, Moffatt never should have trusted the chatbot and the airline should not be liable for the chatbot's misleading information because Air Canada essentially argued that "the chatbot is a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions," a court order said.

"Air Canada argues it cannot be held liable for information provided by one of its agents, servants, or representatives—including a chatbot," Rivers wrote.

[–] RegalPotoo 57 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The thing is, none of that is even slightly true; even if the chatbot were it's own legal entity, it would still be an employee and air Canada are liable for bad advice given by their representatives

[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And Air Canada is free to sue the legal entity chat bot for damages after firing them all they like, after paying the customer their refund.
Though they might find out that AI chatbots don't have a lot of money, seeing as they aren't actually employees and they don't pay them anything.

[–] RegalPotoo 12 points 10 months ago

You'd be really hard pressed to make a case for civil liability against an employee, even in cases where they did not perform their duties in accordance with their training - unless they have actively broken the law, the most recourse you have is to fire them

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago

Totally agree. With that statement they’re treating both employees and bots like scapegoats.

[–] Lemminary 3 points 10 months ago

I wonder if advertising laws apply? With the whole "misleading their customers" being a thing.