Within a couple of years, 50 percent of the organizations that had planned to replace their customer service personnel with AI models are expected to reverse their...
In the case of Air Canada, the thing the chatbot promised was actually pretty reasonable on its own terms, which is both why the customer believed it and why the judge said they had to honour it. I don’t think it would have gone the same way if the bot offered to sell them a Boeing 777 for $10.
A television commercial for the loyalty program displayed the commercial’s protagonist flying to school in a McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II vertical take off jet aircraft, valued at $37.4 million at the time, which could be redeemed for 7,000,000 Pepsi Points. The plaintiff, John Leonard, discovered these could be directly purchased from Pepsi at 10¢ per point. Leonard delivered a check for $700,008.50 to PepsiCo, attempting to purchase the jet.
And one funny addendum to that story is that someone COULD reasonably think that Pepsi had an actual Harrier to give away. After all, Pepsi once owned an actual navy.
In 1989, amidst declining vodka sales, PepsiCo bartered for 2 new Soviet oil tankers, 17 decommissioned submarines (for $150,000 each), a frigate, a cruiser and a destroyer, which they could in turn sell for non-Soviet currency. The oil tankers were leased out through a Norwegian company, while the other ships were immediately sold for scrap.
The Harrier commercial aired in 1996. The Harrier jet was introduced in 1978. It wasn’t too unreasonable to think that an 18 year old jet aircraft would be decommissioned and sold, especially after Soviet tensions eased. And if ‘they’ let Pepsi own actual submarines and a destroyer, doesn’t that seem more far fetched than owning a single old jet aircraft?
I have seen one court case where they were required legally to honor the deal the chatbot made, but I haven’t kept up with any other cases.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/air-canada-chatbot-lawsuit-1.7116416
In the case of Air Canada, the thing the chatbot promised was actually pretty reasonable on its own terms, which is both why the customer believed it and why the judge said they had to honour it. I don’t think it would have gone the same way if the bot offered to sell them a Boeing 777 for $10.
Someone already tried.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico%2C_Inc.
What a cucked judgement. I would have ruled for the plaintiff, with prejudice
Tell me you know nothing about contract law without telling me you know nothing about contract law.
It was a joke, mate. A simple jest. A jape, if you will
Most jokes need to be recognizable as funny?
Like if you say the word cucked, ever, I’m going to assume you’re serious and an imbecile and I would be right to do that, no?!
And one funny addendum to that story is that someone COULD reasonably think that Pepsi had an actual Harrier to give away. After all, Pepsi once owned an actual navy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PepsiCo
The Harrier commercial aired in 1996. The Harrier jet was introduced in 1978. It wasn’t too unreasonable to think that an 18 year old jet aircraft would be decommissioned and sold, especially after Soviet tensions eased. And if ‘they’ let Pepsi own actual submarines and a destroyer, doesn’t that seem more far fetched than owning a single old jet aircraft?
Guy should’ve gotten his Harrier.