3 ms·
The header "Company claimed its chatbot ‘was responsible for its own actions’ when giving wrong information about bereavement fare" is such a great example of a
by frabjoused 3y ago
The header "Company claimed its chatbot ‘was responsible for its own actions’ when giving wrong information about bereavement fare" is such a great example of an article giving misleading information to up sensationalism. Later on it's explained "Air Canada argued that despite the error, the chatbot was a “separate legal entity” and thus was responsible for its actions."
That's a completely different argument and much less alarming.
- ggm 3y ago> That's a completely different argument and much less alarming. Actually, it's just as alarming. The entity behind the chatbot might be a separate legal entity, but that doesn't absolve the airline, who outsourced a function bound to their terms and conditions. If they literally tried to absolve blame by assigning personhood and liability to the bot, that's insanely bad.
- erhaetherth 3y agoThose 2 sentences are identical? Unless they meant the company that made the chatbot was a separate legal entity. If the chatbot itself is a "separate legal entity" then that's basically saying the same thing.