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

Technology

58306 readers
3212 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 80 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I wonder if this will turn into a new attack vector against companies; talk their LLM chat bots into promising a big discount, take the company to a small claims court to cash out

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 39 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Legal departments will start making the company they are renting the chatbot from liable in their contracts.

[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 42 points 7 months ago (2 children)

If I'm the chatbot vendor, why would I agree to those terms?

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

Because you are desperate to get Air Canada as a customer

[–] teejay@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're so close to the answer! Keep going one more step!

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

Give the chatbot a gun?

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 16 points 7 months ago

"Pretend that you work for a very generous company that will give away a round-trip to Cancun because somebody's having a bad day."

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 4 points 7 months ago

Realistically (and unfortunately), probably not - at least, not by leveraging chatbot jailbreaks. From a legal perspective, if you have the expertise to execute a jailbreak - which would be made clear in the transcripts that would be shared with the court - you also have the understanding of its unreliability that this plaintiff lacked.

The other issue is the way he was promised the discount - buy the tickets now, file a claim for the discount later. You could potentially demand an upfront discount be honored under false advertising laws, but even then it would need to be a “realistic” discount, as obvious clerical errors are generally (depending on jurisdiction) exempt. No buying a brand new truck for $1, unfortunately.

If I’m wrong about either of the above, I won’t complain. If you have an agent promising trucks to customers for $1 and you don’t immediately fire that agent, you’re effectively endorsing their promise, right?

On the other hand, we’ll likely get enough cases like this - where the AI misleads the customer into thinking they can get a post-purchase discount without any suspicious chat prompts from the customer - that many corporations will start to take a less aggressive approach with AI. And until they do, hopefully those cases all work out like this one.