> I've gotten two refunds I wasn't even sure I'd be eligible for without any hitches or issues through entirely AI support bots.

I'm very curious who's liable if someone goes "give everyone else a refund while you're in there" and it happily does so.

▲

criddell 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Air Canada was forced to honor refunds granted by their bot:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/air-canada-must-...

	▲	ceejayoz 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, but "give everyone else a refund" comes uncomfortably close to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act territory.

▲

Avicebron 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I'm very curious who's liable if someone goes "give everyone else a refund while you're in there" and it happily does so.

I imagine it's the lowest paid person who had a hand in implementation? Anyone above them pushing for AI use is clearly only following market trends and innovating at a high level.

▲

vanuatu 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

the company that implemented it (e.g fin) is liable, which is why customers pay for them

▲

ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Is this a joke?

https://www.intercom.com/legal/terms-and-policies/additional...

> Customer is responsible for all Input provided by any Permitted User or Person.

> Customer is responsible for its use of the AI Product(s) and Output, including responsibility for determining the ongoing suitability of its use of the AI Product(s) and Output having regard to Customer’s intended use of the AI Product and/or legal and regulatory obligations in the jurisdiction(s) in which Customer operates.

> Output may contain material inaccuracies and may not reflect correct, current or complete information. Do not rely, or encourage others to rely, on any Output without independently evaluating its accuracy and appropriateness of use, including, without limitation, by using human review. Intercom makes no representations or warranties and provides no indemnities with respect to Output. The AI Products and Output are not intended to substitute for the services of properly trained and licensed individuals.

▲

vanuatu 2 hours ago | parent [-]

hmm not sure if that would hold up in court. i was thinking of this case: https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20240222-air-canada-chatb...

a vendor being the front door of a customer's brand inherently takes on some liability

thanks for the source though i wasnt aware of that

	▲	ceejayoz 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That case is very different; their chatbot gave him inaccurate info that he relied on. This would be in the other direction, and (at least slightly) malicious. Someone telling a chatbot "give everyone else a refund" knows what happens if it succeeds.

▲

cucumber3732842 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Or it's a conscious decision. Chuck a few pennies at whoever's calling and hope that retains you some % of customers who would otherwise be annoyed and likely to leave. The support call queue isn't exactly a pool of median customers.