I was at an event where someone was arguing there wasn't an entry fee because chatgpt said it was free (with a screenshot of proof) then asked why they weren't honoring their online price.

▲

myaccountonhn 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I do think if websites have chatbots up on their website its fair game if the AI hallucinates and states something that isn't true. Like when the airline chatbot hallucinated a policy that didn't exist.

A third-party LLM hallucinating something like that though? Hell no. It should be possible to sue for libel.

▲

callc 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A good time to teach a hard lesson about the trustworthiness of LLM output

▲

Cthulhu_ 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

This will lead to a major class-action lawsuit soon enough.

	▲	leptons 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I've never seen such a half-assed thing being adopted by so many people so completely and without reservation. The future seems really dysfunctional.

▲

lazide 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Lesson to whom, is the question.

The venue organizers also ended up with a shit experience (and angry potential customer) while having nothing to do with the BS.

▲

aspenmayer 2 days ago | parent [-]

> (and angry potential customer)

An angry potential customer who demands one work for free is probably not the kind of business arrangement that most folks would find agreeable. I don’t know where these people get off, but they’re free riders on the information superhighway. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

▲

lazide 2 days ago | parent [-]

That same person might have actually paid money if they weren’t (somewhat legitimately) lied to about it being free. Or just not gone.

Instead it’s the worst outcome for everyone, and everyone is angry and thinks each other are assholes. I guess that does sum up America the last few years eh?

▲

2 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

aspenmayer 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The anger is misdirected, as it is a reaction to being confronted with one’s own ignorance and then shooting the messenger. In the hypothetical, that is. I don’t look at it as a lie exactly on the part of AI, but a failure of the user to actually check first party authoritative sources for that kind of info before showing up and acting entitled to a bill of goods you were never sold for any price. Even if it were free, you would still have to show up and claim a badge or check in, at which point they are free to present you with terms and conditions while you attend the event. I think the story says more about users and how they are marketed to than it does about AI and its capabilities. I think AI will probably get better faster than people will get used to the new post-AI normal, and maybe even after that. A lot of market participants seem to want that to happen, so some growing pains are normal with these kinds of disruptive technologies.

▲

carlosjobim 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> That same person might have actually paid money if they weren’t (somewhat legitimately) lied to about it being free. Or just not gone.

His problem.

▲

lazide 2 days ago | parent [-]

When people like that show up and start screaming and yelling at the staff, it’s everyone’s problem.

▲

carlosjobim 2 days ago | parent [-]

People like that are screaming at somebody wherever they might be at the moment. There isn't any technical solutions to them.

▲

lazide 2 days ago | parent [-]

Having a technology platform point someone at a specific venue and then lying about a ton of details (including costs) is not that situation at all.

Frankly, most people would be angry in that situation.

▲

carlosjobim 2 days ago | parent [-]

If somebody is a person who demands to get something for nothing from complete strangers and then get mad when they don't - well that person has very low value as a human until they can find enlightenment. These guys are definitely not in the majority of people.

There are reasonable reactions in this situation: Either be grateful that you got something for free, or accept that you were misinformed and pay what is asked, alternatively leave.

But let's be honest about this particular situation: The visitor had checked the event online, maybe first with ChatGPT and then on the official website. They noticed that the AI had made a mistake and thought they could abuse that to try to get in for free.

Everybody who works with the general public for restaurants, hospitality, events or retail recognize this kind of "customer", who are a small minority which you have to deal with sometimes. There are some base people who live their lives trying to find loop holes and ways to take advantage of others, while at the same time constantly being on the verge of a massive outrage over how unfairly they are being treated.

▲

lazide 2 days ago | parent [-]

This whole thread has a weird ‘ChatGPT is not at fault for passing off flat out bullshit as truth’ vibe. Wtf?

▲

carlosjobim 2 days ago | parent [-]

It is at fault for lying, but only a base person would go out in the real world and try to make other people responsible for the lies they were told by a robot.

A base and egocentric person.

	▲	lazide 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		And ChatGPT pointed said person right at an innocent third party.

▲

throwaway290 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think you misunderstand who the victims of this situation is (hint probably everybody but google)

▲

graemep 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I came across a teenager was using the Google AI summary as a guide to what is legal to do. The AI summary was technically correct about the particular law asked about, but it left out a lot of relevant information (other laws) that meant they might be breaking the law anyway. A human relevant knowledge would mention these.

I have come across the same lack of commonsense from ChatGPT in other contexts. It can be very literal with things such as branded terms vs their common more generic meaning (e.g. with IGCSE and International GCSE - UK exams) which again a knowledgeable human would understand.