this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
623 points (99.1% liked)

Not The Onion

12203 readers
405 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 36 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Oh good, we've entered into the "we can't be held responsible for what our machines do" age of late-stage capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Your honor, I'm not responsible for the petabytes of pirated content that my computer downloaded!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nice that the legal precedent is now "Yes you can be" though.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Conveniently I live in Canada :D

But yeah, a similar US ruling would be nice

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Not just the U.S. I'm seeing this as being something corporations will argue the world over, especially with AI.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 8 months ago

A computer can never be held responsible so a computer must never make management decisions

  • IBM in the 80s and 90s

A computer can never be held responsible so a computer must make all management decisions

  • Corporations in 2025
[–] [email protected] 44 points 8 months ago

Hey dumbasses maybe don't let a loose llm represent your company if you can't control what it's saying. It's not a real person, you can't throw blame to a non sentient being.

[–] [email protected] 104 points 8 months ago

That's an important precedent. Many companies turned to LLMs to cut the cost and dodge any liability for whatever model can say. It's great that they get rekt in the court.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 8 months ago (3 children)

If you type "biz" instead of "business" in the first couple of lines, surely you're not expecting me to actually keep reading?!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

Funnily enough, I thought the article was written by AI. I guess they trained it off something, lol

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's just "El Reg's" style; they've been that way for years. Don't let their pseudoinformality fool you, though, they know their stuff.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah, you mean they've been getting worse for years! Would expect better from a UK based publication that isn't a tabloid, tbh

[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago

I went ahead and read it anyway. I actually had to Google the last word of the article: natch. It's slang for "naturally". We're living in interesting times. Glad the guy got compensated after going through that ordeal.

[–] [email protected] 117 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Why would air Canada even fight this? He got a couple hundred bucks and they paid at least 50k in lawyer fees to fight paying those. They could have just given him the cost of the lawyer's fees and be done with it

[–] [email protected] 25 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Most likely to fight the precedent of them being liable for using an ai chatbot that gives faulty information.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

A settlement would cost less, can be kept private, and doesn't set precedent. Now they have an actual court case judgement, and that does set precedent.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago

I think some companies have a policy of fighting every lawsuit and making everything take as long as possible, simply to discourage more lawsuits.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because there is something far nastier in the world than self interest. This airline seems to me like it was operating from a place of spite.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

It's a corporation. Of course it's operating from a place of spite.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

Just how Air Canada does things now. I think it largely stemmed from the pandemic where people gave them leeway on things being a bit messed up. But now they've fallen into a habit of not taking responsibility for anything.

[–] [email protected] 111 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because now they have to stop using the chatbot or take on the liability of having to pay out whenever it fucks up.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Which is fascinating, that they themselves thought there was any doubt about it, or they could argue such a doubt.

This is the same like arguing "It wasn't me who shot the mailmen dead. It was my automated home self defense system"

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago

Agree 100%--i mean who are you gonna fine, the bot? The company that sold you the bot? This is a simple case of garbage in, garbage out--if they set it up properly and vetted its operation, they wouldn't be trying to make such preposterous objections. I'm glad this went to court where it was definitively shut down.

Fuck Canada Air. The guy already lost a loved one, now they wanna drag him through all this over a pittance? To me, this is the corporate mindset--going to absolutely any length necessary to hoover up more money, even the smallest of scraps.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 8 months ago

Par for the course for this airline, in my experience. They're allergic to responsibility.

load more comments
view more: next ›