this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
180 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37708 readers
402 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cestvrai@lemm.ee 43 points 8 months ago

Wow, wasn’t expecting such a feel-good AI story.

I wonder if I could fuck with my ISOs chatbot 🤔

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 26 points 8 months ago

It's a good precedent. Nip this shit in the bud immediately. AI agents you allow to speak on behalf of you company, are agents of the company.

So if you want to put an AI up front representing your company, you need to be damn sure it knows how to walk the line.

When there's a person, and employee involved, then the employee can be fired to symbolically put the blame on them. But the AI isn't a person. It can't take the blame for you.

This is a very nice counterbalancing force to slow the implementation of AI, and to incentivize its safety/reliability engineering. Therefore, I'm in favor of this ruling. AI chatbot promises you a free car, the company has to get you the car.

[–] Zworf@beehaw.org 24 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Experts told the Vancouver Sun that Air Canada may have succeeded in avoiding liability in Moffatt's case if its chatbot had warned customers that the information that the chatbot provided may not be accurate.

Just no.

If you can't guarantee it's accurate then don't offer it.

I as a customer don't want to have to deal with lying chatbots and then having to figure out whether it's true or not.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 17 points 8 months ago

Exactly. The goal of a customer service is to resolve issues. If communication isn't precise and accurate, then nothing can be resolved.

Imagine this:

"Okay Mr Jones. I've filed the escalation as we've discussed and the reference number is 130912831"

"Okay, so are we done here?"

"You may end this conversation if you would like. Please keep in mind that 20% of everything I say is false"

"But we're done right?"

"Yes"

"What was that confirmation number again?"

"783992831"

"That's different than the one you gave me before before"

"Oh sorry my mistake the confirmation number is actually 130912831-783992831. Don't forget the dash! Is there anything else I can help you with?"

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 20 points 8 months ago (4 children)

It's common courtesy to post the plain text of a paywalled article.

[–] TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

We've started asking users not to do this. No issues with posting an archive link, though.

[–] CooperRedArmyDog@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Why in the world would you ask people to stop cercomventing a pay wall

[–] TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org 3 points 8 months ago

There's no need to be rude.

I'm not asking people not to circumvent paywalls. In fact, if you reread my comment, I recommended the user leave an archive link, which is a method of bypassing paywalls that doesn't involve posting the full contents of the article to this site.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Probably because it could raise copyright issues for Beehaw since Beehaw would be hosting the article.

[–] CooperRedArmyDog@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

At some point we have to ask oursevles what is more important IP law, or dessiminating information.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Lemmy was founded on the idea that different instances can decide questions like this for themselves.

It seems that Beehaw has chosen one direction, but there may be other instances out there that have chosen another direction.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Still, asking oneself is part of that system.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Maybe, but users from other instances would be lowest opinions I would expect the admins to consider. I would expect mods, financial contributers, and users registered to this instance to have a far greater day in how this instance is run.

[–] MtnPoo@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

so there's just no answer as to why we can't paste the text?

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There was an answer from a mod, they don't want to infringe on the copyright here.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's really only a copyright problem if they're making money from it right?

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 8 months ago

No. It is worse if they try to make money on it, but a profit motive isn't necessary.

[–] Zworf@beehaw.org 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately there's another problem with archive.is / archive.ph / archive.today . Their owner has some beef with Cloudflare DNS and returns bogus results to them so anyone using 1.1.1.1 as DNS can't visit them.

The Cloudflare side of the story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828702 The archive side: https://twitter.com/archiveis/status/1018691421182791680

Note that that discussion was from 2019 but the situation was never resolved and the issue persists to this day.

[–] TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org 2 points 8 months ago

Thank you for pointing this out, I wasn't aware.

[–] SpectralPineapple@beehaw.org 32 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Copy pasting entire articles is discouraged. It is preferable to share a link to an archive website such as this: https://archive.is/5UPAI

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Also, you can convert it to pig latin and post that verbatim. Eventually we're going to have to interpret copyright term in diverging frames of reference and that's gonna be an interesting lawsuit hearing.

[–] SpectralPineapple@beehaw.org 2 points 8 months ago

I don't know what you mean. That is just common practice in websites like this because of copyright law. If the law changes, the practice will probably change as well.

[–] dan@upvote.au 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Wired doesn't show a paywall for me for some reason, but in any case the the original source is Ars Technica which I don't think shows a paywall to anyone: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/air-canada-must-honor-refund-policy-invented-by-airlines-chatbot/

[–] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 9 points 8 months ago

Good! You wanna automate away a human task, sure! But if your automation screws up you don’t get to hide behind it. You still chose to use the automation in the first place.

Hell, I’ve heard ISPs here work around the rep on the phone overpromising by literally having the rep transfer to an automated system that reads the agreement and then has the customer agree to that with an explicit note saying that everything said before is irrelevant, then once done, transfer back to the rep.

[–] tesseract@beehaw.org 8 points 8 months ago

They wanted human employees replaced by AI. But wanting responsibility and accountability replaced as well is going a bit too far. Companies should be forced to own up anything that their AI does as if it were an employee. That includes copyright infringement. And if the mistake is one worth firing an employee, then we should demand the management responsible for such mistakes be fired instead.

[–] baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)