"we're not responsible for the actions of our employees, even when we literally programmed them"
What a fucking joke, it's like they're saying the quiet part out loud
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
162 points (96.6% liked)
World News
39517 readers
2963 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It sounds like they are leaning on the chatbot being recognized as a sentient being. That's a pretty long shot.
In that case the chat bot is an employee and must receive a wage or this is considered slavery.
Next Gen enshitification
Well it's true, to a certain extent.
If an employee (or a chatbot, for that matter), promised an egregious sum for no reason, I don't think the company should be liable either.
Imagine getting hired to do support, having a friend open a chat and you promising to give him a milion dollars. Makes no sense.
But getting mislead about ticket pricing and them then refusing to refund the fare at least partially (the part that they promised would not be charged) is absolutely something they should be liable for.
And lawyer fees plus some pocket money for wasting peoples' time, if getting a refund entails more than an email or two.
Yes, it was reasonable to believe was the point. I think what’s also interesting is the bot referred them to the correct information, which was part of the defence. However, the ruling said that both were provided by the company, the customer had no reason to believe the website gave more accurate information in one place compared to another.
This chatbot no longer works for the airline according to its LinkedIn profile.
"separate legal entity"
That the airline completely controls and has since updated the chatbot's programming.
And not even any punitive damages. You know they've absolutely screwed over others with this.
Air Canada sucks. I avoid them as much as possible.
Good. Let's call it bug testing as we see what sort of deals various chatbots will agree too!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Canada’s largest airline has been ordered to pay compensation after its chatbot gave a customer inaccurate information, misleading him into buying a full-price ticket.
In 2022, Jake Moffatt contacted Air Canada to determine which documents were needed to qualify for a bereavement fare, and if refunds could be granted retroactively.
According to Moffat’s screenshot of a conversation with the chatbot, the British Columbia resident was told he could apply for the refund “within 90 days of the date your ticket was issued” by completing an online form.
Moffatt then sued for the fare difference, prompting Air Canada to issue what the tribunal member Christopher Rivers called a “remarkable submission” in its defense.
Air Canada argued that despite the error, the chatbot was a “separate legal entity” and thus was responsible for its actions.
While Air Canada argued correct information was available on its website, Rivers said the company did “not explain why the webpage titled ‘Bereavement Travel’ was inherently more trustworthy” than its chatbot.
The original article contains 414 words, the summary contains 164 words. Saved 60%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
They weren't misled. That implies that the bot was able to understand company policy.