3 ms·
> Air Canada, for its part, argued that it could not be held liable for information provided by the bot. > "In effect, Air Canada suggests the chatbot is a se
by Sakos 3y ago
> Air Canada, for its part, argued that it could not be held liable for information provided by the bot.
> "In effect, Air Canada suggests the chatbot is a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions. This is a remarkable submission. While a chatbot has an interactive component, it is still just a part of Air Canada’s website," Rivers wrote.
This could be an article on The Onion. Unfortunately, I suspect this won't be the last time companies try to weasel their way out of the consequences of how they use AI in relation to their customers (i.e., us)
- throwaway888abc 3y agoIndeed interesting, even in alternative reality if their argument is valid. They still "hired" the chatbot to provide service on their behalf and they are liable for it. Not lawyer, just spark of common sense ?
- bee_rider 3y agoI don’t think hiring is a good analogy here. A human at least can bear responsibility. A chatbot cannot. That responsibility has to be absorbed by something. A company should be much more responsible for the actions of programs they run, than people they hire.
- em-bee 3y agoif a human makes that mistake the company is still responsible for it. the company can however then turn against that human they hired and sue them. if that court determines that said human does bear responsibility the company will get something back. that has no bearing on what the customer gets from the company however. so for the customer it is irrelevant how the mistake by the company was made.
- nerdponx 3y agoI love a good spicy legal opinion like this.