749
Air Canada must honor refund policy invented by airline’s chatbot (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Air Canada appears to have quietly killed its costly chatbot support.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 92 points 2 years ago (9 children)

What i find most stupid about all of this is that Air Canada could just have admitted a mistake, payed The refund of ~450 USD which is basically nothing to them. It would have waisted no one's time and made good customer service and positive feedback. Then quietly fix the AI in the background and move on. Instead they now spend waaayy more money on legale fees, expensive lawyers, employees sallery, have a disabled AI, customer backlash and bad press all costing them many hundreds of thousands of dollars. So stupid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 52 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    payed

    Paid. Something something "payed" is only for nautical rope or something.

    waisted

    Wasted. Something something "waisted" is only for dressmaking or something.

    I can't remember the details of what that bot says, but it is something along these lines. I am not a bot, and this action was performed manually. Cheers!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Thanks. I do know tho, but im slightly dyslexic and English is not my first language so it's hard for me to catch my own mistakes, while I can easily see it when others are making it. Also autocorrect is a blessing and a curse for me sometimes.

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

    Even best selling authors make these mistakes, most people don't have an editor proof reading their off the cuff reddit/lemmy comments.

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

    I think it's crazy that your comment is true right now, but we are also just on the cusp where it would be 100% possible to have every one of your Lemmy comments proofread and edited by a LLM "editor".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Test case.

    Like whoever wrote the underlying bot (chatgpt?) Doesn't want a precedent saying bot is liable, so they will invest huge resources into this one case.

    They probably settled thousands of cases waiting for this one to come up, thinking this one had the right characteristics.

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

    You'd think they'd have tried a better case then. They lost in the court of public opinion as soon as it was about bereavement and their argument that the chatbot on their own site is a separate legal entity they aren't responsible for is pants on head stupid.

    In a way, we should be grateful they bungled it and are held liable, other companies may be held to the same standard in the future.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent