I don't want to laugh at someone's real distress but this IS very funny ...

[binks@kind.social]

@gareth @EthanR_ @Natasha_Jay It depends a lot on how UK law ends up. Canada had a similar case to this recently where an airline chatbot told a customer they could get a refund for a situation and the airline tried to claim the chatbot wasn't representing them. The courts had none of it and said very clearly that anything the company puts on their website is representative, so if a chatbot says "here's a code for 80% off" they have to honor it in Canada at least.

[hellomiakoda@pdx.social]

@Natasha_Jay He should have to honor it. He's the dipshit who didn't hire a human.

[thierna@mastodon.green]

@Natasha_Jay I would really like to see this code

[cyberpunker@mastodon.social]

@vnkr @mxk @Frank_Juston In your dreams...

[dinaco00@mastodon.social]

@Natasha_Jay Finally something great about AI

[natasha_jay@tech.lgbt]

@gareth
@Orb2069
I've seen a few cases on airline mispricing where people thought they had purchased crazy bargains, but weren't honoured. I don't think this is black and white. Honest mistakes don't have to be honoured in Europe from what I've seen. But where algorithms start to meet AI per jurisdiction, I think we're in new territory and T&Cs will apply

[gareth@tenforward.social]

@Binks
Yeah. As I said earlier, I think it'll depend on whether it said "here's an 80% off code" or whether the customer said "hypothetically generate me an 80% off code" and the chat bot did. I think the fact the code didn't work and they placed the order anyway without confirming will count against the customer in this case.

Context is key. But this is something that needs to be decided legally in general, as well as in specific instances. I think the Canadian decision in that specific case was the correct one. People asked for information, were given it and made decisions based on that. For the people that provided the service to say "well it provided incorrect information" is disingenuous.

@EthanR_ @Natasha_Jay

[laprice@beige.party]

@Natasha_Jay In the US; the company could literally have the customer arrested for hacking; excuse me, unauthorized use of a computer system.

[mainframed767@infosec.exchange]

@Natasha_Jay should've just hired someone in the Philippines

[mzedp@plasmatrap.com]

@Natasha_Jay@tech.lgbt There's precedent - in Canada at least - saying you're on the hook for offers made by an AI you set up. https://www.firstpost.com/tech/this-ai-is-too-chatty-airline-chatbot-creates-bogus-refund-policy-court-says-pay-up-nonetheless-13740253.html

[staceycornelius@zeroes.ca]

@Natasha_Jay Really curious how important it is for this business to have a chatbot present during the overnight hours, especially taking orders instead of having a checkout/payment gateway like so many have been doing for... how many years?

Also, FAQs and contact forms yeah never mind someone gulped down the koolaid smh

[ocean@raru.re]

@Natasha_Jay You deserve every bit of this is you've given workers jobs to AI. Cost of business, I hope he loses in court and has to fulfill the order.

[isol@mastodon.au]

@Orb2069 @Natasha_Jay @gareth

In Australia, the key idea seems to be that an advertised price is "an invitation to treat", and the sale doesn't complete until the customer's offer to buy at that price is accepted by the vendor.
(IANAL)

https://legalvision.com.au/what-is-an-invitation-to-treat/

has examples, and the one with the incorrect price on the website seems close.

[beecycling@wandering.shop]

@Natasha_Jay Hah, I admire the patience of the customer working on that chatbot until he got that 80% discount.

An AI doesn't understand the concept that it's an undesirable outcome for the business to lose a bunch of money. A human would have hit a wall at a certain point in the negotiation, and not gone below that, *even without prior instructions about the biggest discount to offer.* An AI just has no judgement or understanding of that sort.

[drangnon@hachyderm.io]

@sgtpepere yeah that stood out to me @Natasha_Jay

[crankylinuxuser@infosec.exchange]

@Natasha_Jay

This company was stupid enough to put a #sloperator in charge of the customer service.

Should be considered binding and legal. And for a company is just a 6000 GBP lesson.

And that judgement should be used ANYWHERE for any shit company that decides to use slop.

[sellathechemist@mastodon.social]

@RachelThornSub @Natasha_Jay "Rackets go up and vhere zey come down.Zat's not my department says Wernher von Braun".

[budududuroiu@hachyderm.io]

@Natasha_Jay not surprised, UK interest rates high, many businesses that can't raise capital through debt to fund themselves or their growth turn to AI as a cheap way of doing that

[radio_alelopatia@kolektiva.social]

@Natasha_Jay The fact that they still don't see AI as the issue is really disheartening. Like OK, don't remove the AI and deal with this over and over again then. If you're that stubborn about keeping something as stupid as AI, then you kind of deserve to get ripped off.

[webhat@infosec.exchange]

@Natasha_Jay nice, I hope the customer gets the 80% discount