Death of a Chatbot, body blow to an industry
We recorded 4 claims from this post. 1 was checked against evidence. 3 can’t be checked. 1 more is held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (4)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“In the tech industry, this should be the top story.”
What we tested: The Air Canada chatbot ruling should be the top story in the tech industry.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“In brief, an Air Canada chatbot confabulated (“hallucinated”) an answer – telling a customer that bereavement trips would be refunded.”
What we tested: An Air Canada chatbot hallucinated an answer telling a customer that bereavement trips would be refunded.
What happened: The decision transcribes advice allowing a reduced bereavement rate through a refund application after travel, contrary to the policy it records. It finds negligent misrepresentation; the promised benefit concerned a partial fare reduction. (British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal, )
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Nor should he have.”
What we tested: The tribunal judge was right not to accept Air Canada's argument that its chatbot was a separate legal entity responsible for its own actions.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“If other judges rule the same way, and hold companies responsible for the nonsense their chatbots say, one of the biggest alleged use cases for large language models could dry up, fast.”
What we tested: If other judges rule the same way and hold companies responsible for the nonsense their chatbots say, one of the biggest alleged use cases for large language models could dry up fast.
Held from this post (1)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.