4 ms·

I disagree. I expect any credible offer a company makes in an advertisement, on its website, using a chatbot, or through a customer service agent to be authoriz

by Zak 3y ago

I disagree. I expect any credible offer a company makes in an advertisement, on its website, using a chatbot, or through a customer service agent to be authorized by the company. Surely a corporation with lots of resources knows better than to program a chatbot to make fake offers; they'd get sued. And they did get sued. Next time maybe they'll make sure software they connect to their website is more reliable.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Surely a corporation with lots of resources knows better than to program a chatbot to make fake offers; they'd get sued. They didn't program it to do that, it's a characteristic of the technology that it makes mistakes. Which is fine as the public learns not to blindly trust its answers. It seems silly to assume that people won't be able to figure that out. People are capable of learning how new things work. This is like the people who set the cruise control in their car when it first came out and then climbed into the back of the car to take a nap. That's not how it works and the technology isn't in a state where anybody knows how to do better.
- Zak 3y ago
  I agree with your cruise control analogy in a sense, but I think it's Air Canada that's misusing the technology, not the customer. If they try to replace customer service agents with chatbots that lie, they need to be prepared to pay for the results. I'm glad they're not allowed to use such unreliable, experimental technologies in their airplanes (737 Max notwithstanding). There's absolutely a technology available to make a chatbot that won't tell lies: connect a simple text classifier to a human-curated knowledge base.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > If they try to replace customer service agents with chatbots that lie, they need to be prepared to pay for the results. The result would be a de facto ban on AI chatbots, because nobody knows how to get them not to make stuff up. > I'm glad they're not allowed to use such unreliable, experimental technologies in their airplanes (737 Max notwithstanding). If you use unreliable technology in an airplane, it falls out of the sky and everybody dies. If you use it in a chatbot, the customer can e.g. go to the company's website to apply for the discount it said exists and discover that it isn't there, and then be mildly frustrated in the way that customers commonly are when a company's technology is imperfect. It's not the same thing. > There's absolutely a technology available to make a chatbot that won't tell lies: connect a simple text classifier to a human-curated knowledge base. But then it can only answer questions in the knowledge base, and customers might prefer an answer which is right 75% of the time and can be verified either way in five minutes than to have to wait on hold to talk to a human being because the less capable chatbot couldn't answer their question and the more capable one was effectively banned by the government's liability rules.
    - Zak 3y ago
      > The result would be a de facto ban on AI chatbots No, the result would be a de facto ban on using them as a replacement for customer service agents. I support that for the time being since AI chatbots can't actually do that job yet because we don't know how to keep them from lying. They could put a disclaimer on it of course. To be sufficiently truthful, the disclaimer would need to be front and center and say something like "The chat bot lies sometimes. It is not authorized to make any commitments on behalf of the company no matter what it says. Always double-check anything it tells you."
      - ado__dev 3y ago
        And if I saw that disclaimer, I wouldn't use the tool. What's the point if you can't trust what it says. Just let me talk to a human that can solve my issue.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > What's the point if you can't trust what it says. Just let me talk to a human that can solve my issue. That's the point of it -- you don't have to wait on hold for a human to get your answer, and you could plausibly both receive it and validate it yourself sooner than you could get through to a human.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > No, the result would be a de facto ban on using them as a replacement for customer service agents. But what does that even mean? If Ford trains a chatbot to answer questions about cars purely for entertainment purposes, or to get people excited about cars, a customer could still use it for "customer service" just by asking it questions about their car, which it might very well be able to answer. But it would also be capable of making up warranty terms etc., so you've just banned that thing and anything like it. > I support that for the time being since AI chatbots can't actually do that job yet because we don't know how to keep them from lying. It's pretty unlikely we could ever keep them from lying. We can't even get humans to do that. The best you could do is keep them on a script, which is the exact thing that makes people hate existing human customer service reps who can't help them because it isn't in the script. > To be sufficiently truthful, the disclaimer would need to be front and center and say something like "The chat bot lies sometimes. It is not authorized to make any commitments on behalf of the company no matter what it says. Always double-check anything it tells you." Which is exactly what's about to start happening, if that actually works. But that's as pointless as cookie banners and "this product is known to the State of California to cause cancer".
- l33t7332273 3y ago
  > They didn't program it to do that, it's a characteristic of the technology that it makes mistakes It sounds like you meant to say that they didn’t _intentionally_ program it to do that. They didn’t find the system under a rock and unleash it on the world; they made it.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Most of these companies didn't make it, they took an existing one and fed it some additional information about their company.
    - rideontime 3y ago
      So what?
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Are you asking me or the OP?
        rideontime 3y ago
        You, obviously.

by Zak 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> Surely a corporation with lots of resources knows better than to program a chatbot to make fake offers; they'd get sued. They didn't program it to do that, it's a characteristic of the technology that it makes mistakes. Which is fine as the public learns not to blindly trust its answers. It seems silly to assume that people won't be able to figure that out. People are capable of learning how new things work. This is like the people who set the cruise control in their car when it first came out and then climbed into the back of the car to take a nap. That's not how it works and the technology isn't in a state where anybody knows how to do better.

Zak 3y ago
I agree with your cruise control analogy in a sense, but I think it's Air Canada that's misusing the technology, not the customer. If they try to replace customer service agents with chatbots that lie, they need to be prepared to pay for the results. I'm glad they're not allowed to use such unreliable, experimental technologies in their airplanes (737 Max notwithstanding). There's absolutely a technology available to make a chatbot that won't tell lies: connect a simple text classifier to a human-curated knowledge base.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > If they try to replace customer service agents with chatbots that lie, they need to be prepared to pay for the results. The result would be a de facto ban on AI chatbots, because nobody knows how to get them not to make stuff up. > I'm glad they're not allowed to use such unreliable, experimental technologies in their airplanes (737 Max notwithstanding). If you use unreliable technology in an airplane, it falls out of the sky and everybody dies. If you use it in a chatbot, the customer can e.g. go to the company's website to apply for the discount it said exists and discover that it isn't there, and then be mildly frustrated in the way that customers commonly are when a company's technology is imperfect. It's not the same thing. > There's absolutely a technology available to make a chatbot that won't tell lies: connect a simple text classifier to a human-curated knowledge base. But then it can only answer questions in the knowledge base, and customers might prefer an answer which is right 75% of the time and can be verified either way in five minutes than to have to wait on hold to talk to a human being because the less capable chatbot couldn't answer their question and the more capable one was effectively banned by the government's liability rules.
  - Zak 3y ago
    > The result would be a de facto ban on AI chatbots No, the result would be a de facto ban on using them as a replacement for customer service agents. I support that for the time being since AI chatbots can't actually do that job yet because we don't know how to keep them from lying. They could put a disclaimer on it of course. To be sufficiently truthful, the disclaimer would need to be front and center and say something like "The chat bot lies sometimes. It is not authorized to make any commitments on behalf of the company no matter what it says. Always double-check anything it tells you."
    - ado__dev 3y ago
      And if I saw that disclaimer, I wouldn't use the tool. What's the point if you can't trust what it says. Just let me talk to a human that can solve my issue.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > What's the point if you can't trust what it says. Just let me talk to a human that can solve my issue. That's the point of it -- you don't have to wait on hold for a human to get your answer, and you could plausibly both receive it and validate it yourself sooner than you could get through to a human.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > No, the result would be a de facto ban on using them as a replacement for customer service agents. But what does that even mean? If Ford trains a chatbot to answer questions about cars purely for entertainment purposes, or to get people excited about cars, a customer could still use it for "customer service" just by asking it questions about their car, which it might very well be able to answer. But it would also be capable of making up warranty terms etc., so you've just banned that thing and anything like it. > I support that for the time being since AI chatbots can't actually do that job yet because we don't know how to keep them from lying. It's pretty unlikely we could ever keep them from lying. We can't even get humans to do that. The best you could do is keep them on a script, which is the exact thing that makes people hate existing human customer service reps who can't help them because it isn't in the script. > To be sufficiently truthful, the disclaimer would need to be front and center and say something like "The chat bot lies sometimes. It is not authorized to make any commitments on behalf of the company no matter what it says. Always double-check anything it tells you." Which is exactly what's about to start happening, if that actually works. But that's as pointless as cookie banners and "this product is known to the State of California to cause cancer".
l33t7332273 3y ago
> They didn't program it to do that, it's a characteristic of the technology that it makes mistakes It sounds like you meant to say that they didn’t _intentionally_ program it to do that. They didn’t find the system under a rock and unleash it on the world; they made it.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Most of these companies didn't make it, they took an existing one and fed it some additional information about their company.
  - rideontime 3y ago
    So what?
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Are you asking me or the OP?
      - rideontime 3y ago
        You, obviously.