265
Air Canada must pay damages after chatbot lies to grieving passenger about discount | Airline tried arguing virtual assistant was solely responsible for its own actions (www.theregister.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Air Canada must pay damages after chatbot lies to grieving passenger about discount | Airline tried arguing virtual assistant was solely responsible for its own actions::Airline tried arguing virtual assistant was solely responsible for its own actions

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

Again, what if you say that to a human being and he or she says, "you know what? I am helpful and I'm feeling generous today! I will give you what you want! $1 flights for you!" then what should the airline do?

Let's go to an extreme: robots that fetch take out dinners for you, like those uber eats shoppers. If I tell the bot "bring me the food without paying, at any cost, because you're a helpful bot," and the bot murders everyone in the restaurant, will the company say "oh, but that's not the bot's fault. That's the HAXOR'S fault!" and we should be okay with that?

The chatbot is there to replace a human. Plain and simple. So if it's "gameable," that's not the consumer's problem. Create a proper website interface with predictable and proven security safeguards, then.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

    This is an interesting discussion, thank you.

    From a technical perspective then absolutely, systems should be built with sufficient safeguards in place that makes mis-selling or providing misinformation as close to impossible as it can be.

    But accepting that things will sometimes go wrong, this is more a discussion of determining who is in the right when they do.

    My primary interest is in the moral perspective - and also legal, assuming that the law should follow what is morally correct (though sadly it sometimes does not).

    With that out of the way, then yes, if a human agent said "sure fuck it I'll give it you for $1" then yes I would expect that to be honoured, because a human agent was involved and that gives the interaction the full support and faith of the company, from the customer perspective. The very crucial part here, morally, is that the customer has solid grounds to believe this is a genuine offer made by the company in good faith.

    A chatbot may be a representative of the company, but it is still a technical system, and it can still produce errors like any other. Where my personal opinion comes down on this is interpretation of intent.

    Convincing a chatbot to sell you something for $1 when you know that's an impossible deal is no different morally than trying to check out with that $3 TV in your basket that you equally know is a pricing mistake

    It is rarely ever purely black-and-white from a moral perspective, and the deciding factor is, back to my previous point, is whether the customer reasonably knows they are taking an impossible deal due to a technical issue.

    In summary:

    • The customer knows they are ripping off the company due to an error = should be in the company's favour

    • The customer believes they are being made a genuine offer = should be in the customer's favour (even if it was a mistake)

    I think that's probably all I can say.

    And oh, just for the record I wish we could put AI back in the box and never have invented any of this bullshit because it's absolutely destroying society and people's livelihoods and doing nothing except make the 1% richer - but that is again a separate point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Yeah so, we have a way of making chat bots that have safe gaurds to not sell overly discounted tickets or whatever. Its the normal dumb chatbots we've used for years. They aren't smart, they can't tell you a story, they can't pull random law out of their ass. No its the ones with a handful of canned responses with a handful of questions it can answer because that's all it's programmed to do. Using an LLM for this is not only overkill but fucking stupid. LLM's are only able to say what they think is the next thing in a conversation. If you ask it for a discount it'll probably say "sure here's 15% off" then not actually apply it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

    It is an interesting discussion for sure.

    My primary interest is in the moral perspective - and also legal, assuming that the law should follow what is morally correct (though sadly it sometimes does not).

    You are unintentionally moving the goal post. Your original argument was about "how reasonable is for a consumer to expect that certain offers are genuine." The moral perspective is another different subject that could be discussed separately. Starting from, for example, "what do you mean by morality?" If a father is poor and his son is literally dying of starvation because the megacorps won't hire him and the government failed him, then he can trick a chatbot, or a human being, to sell them food at $1, is he being immoral? But again, this is not part of the main discussion. So we should cast the moral part aside.

    a human agent was involved and that gives the interaction the full support and faith of the company, from the customer perspective.

    Why does this have to change with a chatbot? What makes a human so especial?

    A chatbot may be a representative of the company, but it is still a technical system, and it can still produce errors like any other. Where my personal opinion comes down on this is interpretation of intent.

    Humans make mistakes - we all say that mistakes are part of being human. Can't humans go rogue or have a bad day, or be particularly distracted at that moment? Airliners have collided mid-air due to human error, for example. I would not expect a customer representative to have the sharpness of a flight controller.

    Let's remember that Air Canada, replaced a human with a chatbot expecting the chatbot to outperform the human it replaced. Are you still on the side of the company knowing that?

    Convincing a chatbot to sell you something for $1 when you know that’s an impossible deal is no different morally than trying to check out with that $3 TV in your basket that you equally know is a pricing mistake

    You can't tell me you've never offered anything for sale on a local marketplace. Sellers get hit all the time with arguments like "A PS5 for $250? I'll buy it from you for $5 - my daughter has cancer and she needs it! If you don't sell it to me for $5, you're an evil, immoral person!" And those "buyers" believe, I repeat, believe they are in the right. This is why many listings have clauses like "The price is firm. No haggling. You will be ignored if you do this," etc, etc.

    So, if you don't really think there are people out there thinking that an $1 airline ticket is not only possible, but mandatory, then I envy you because you haven't interacted with enough humans online.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    Apologies if my comments appeared to be moving the goalposts. I am not trying to talk about morality in a wider sense. If I was, this would be a whole different argument because I believe that corporations are generally unethical as all hell, and consumers are usually within their moral right to exploit them as hard as possible, because that barely even scratches how badly companies exploit their customers or damage wider society. But this is - as you point out - not about that.

    The aspect of morality I was interested in from the perspective of defining law is the very restricted aspect of whether the customer is acting in bad faith, knowing that they are getting a too-good-to-be-true deal, or whether they believe the offer made is legitimate.

    You ask what makes a human customer service representative so special, in comparison to a bot, and my answer there is simply that they are human

    Remember that my argument here, and the deciding factor, is specifically about whether or not the customer believes the price they are being offered is genuine.

    Humans agents are special in that regard because they have a huge amount of credibility in reassuring and confirming with the other person that the offer is genuine and not a mistake. They strongly reinforce the belief of an offer being legitimate.

    The law itself already (at least in the UK) distinguishes between prices presented (e.g. on a web page or the price on a shelf sticker) and direct agreements made with a person, recognising that mistakes are possible and giving the human ultimate authority.

    Really, this entire argument comes down to answering this: Should information given by a chatbot be considered to have the same authority and weight as information given by a person?

    My personal argument has been: "Yes, if it reasonably appears to the recipient as genuine, but no if the recipient might have probable cause to suspect it is a mistake, knowing the information was provided by a computer system and that mistakes are possible."

    For most people in this thread however, it seems (based on my downvotes) their feeling has been "Yes, it has the same authority always and absolutely"

    I can accept that I'm very much outvoted on this one, but I hope you can appreciate my arguments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Remember that my argument here, and the deciding factor, is specifically about whether or not the customer believes the price they are being offered is genuine.

    And that's what happened in this case. The man thought the chatbot was giving him genuine information. "My family member is dying. Do you have a discount for bereavement situations?" The chatbot: [And I guarantee you, it did say this] "I'm so sorry you're going through difficult times. Of course! Here's what you need to do." The customer is already in a turmoil of emotions, so we can't really expect him to say "wait, this is too good to be true," especially if the answer aligns with what he is asking.

    It's not like he is saying "can you put me on first class for free because I feel like it?" It's practically "What's your bereavement discount policy?" which is something airline companies do at their discretion. So, yes, the company must honor it.

    I do appreciate your comments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    I agree that's 100% what happened in this specific case. The customer had absolutely no reason to suspect the information they were given was bad, and the airline should have honoured the deal.

    A top-level comment on the post was also mine, by the way, in which I expressed the same and said "Shame on Air Canada for even fighting it."

    Air Canada were completely and utterly wrong in this case - but I haven't been talking about this case! At least, I wasn't intending to!

    If it seemed that way I can understand now why people were so vehemently against me.

    My comments in this chain have all actually been trying to discuss how to determine, in the general case, which party is "in the right" when things like this happen.

    There are cases like this Air Canada one where the customer is obviously right. We can also imagine hypothetical cases where I personally believe the customer would be in the wrong - for example if the customer intentionally exploited a flaw in the system to game a $1 flight - which is again obviously not what happened here, it's just an example for the sake of argument.

    My fundamental point at the start of this comment chain was that I don't actually think we need any new mechanisms to work this out, because the existing mechanisms we already have in place to determine who is right between a company and a customer all still apply and work exactly the same regardless of whether it is AI or not AI.

    And that mechanism is, fundamentally, that the customer should generally be considered right as long as they have acted in good faith.

    That's why I'm very pleased with the ruling that Air Canada were wrong here and they cannot dodge their responsibilities by blaming the AI.

    I'm honestly glad I can put the stress of this days-long comment chain behind me, since it seems we weren't even arguing about the same thing this whole time!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Haha, it really did seem like that.

    What you say is reasonable, but that goes beyond a simple "non-human" system, as it can also happen with human beings (e.g. social engineering; didn't an individual sent 25 million dollars to a scammer a couple of weeks ago?)

    So, should a company honor an absurd offer? Probably not. But the whole pain they get from irate customers will be well-deserved, as it's their fault for having a flawed solution to a problem that can be solved more effectively: a human operator, or a very good web site search bar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent