AI can help you hate Air Canada more than you already do
February 15, 2024 1:35 PM Subscribe
As a regular Air Canada "customer," I wish any of this surprised me. Amuses me, yes, surprises me, nope.
posted by rpfields at 1:48 PM on February 15 [6 favorites]
posted by rpfields at 1:48 PM on February 15 [6 favorites]
I wonder how many customer service agents were "replaced' by this fucking AI chatbot? How many people now absolutely loathe Air Canada? Driving customers away aren't fucking "durable savings," you MBA shit bags.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 1:49 PM on February 15 [26 favorites]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 1:49 PM on February 15 [26 favorites]
I'd call that argument "wildly hallucinatory," not "incompetent." I wonder to what extent the lawyer involved believed that it made sense. We've seen several cases where lawyers apparently thought a LLM could automatically generate briefs for them. That's a kind of category error.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 1:50 PM on February 15
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 1:50 PM on February 15
I haven't been able to discern whether this was a trendy LLM-driven chatbot, or an old-school keyword-driven forgot-we-contracted-this-out-to-some-vendor chatbot that hadn't been properly maintained.
posted by credulous at 1:57 PM on February 15 [5 favorites]
posted by credulous at 1:57 PM on February 15 [5 favorites]
Love it.
Here's the full decision: Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149 (CanLII).
And for background, this is a decision of the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal. It's an administrative tribunal rather than court, but it's been given small claims jurisdiction up to $5,000 and a bunch of other disputes like strata (condominium) and motor vehicle liability. It's accomplished very fast decisions and high satisfaction among participants with a genuinely mobile friendly online system, human case management, plain language decisions, and no lawyers allowed (absent special permission). Only there could a decision be made in a year after the underlying events. Anyway, good decision, and glad there's an accessible tribunal available where consumers have a chance.
posted by lookoutbelow at 1:59 PM on February 15 [16 favorites]
Here's the full decision: Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149 (CanLII).
And for background, this is a decision of the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal. It's an administrative tribunal rather than court, but it's been given small claims jurisdiction up to $5,000 and a bunch of other disputes like strata (condominium) and motor vehicle liability. It's accomplished very fast decisions and high satisfaction among participants with a genuinely mobile friendly online system, human case management, plain language decisions, and no lawyers allowed (absent special permission). Only there could a decision be made in a year after the underlying events. Anyway, good decision, and glad there's an accessible tribunal available where consumers have a chance.
posted by lookoutbelow at 1:59 PM on February 15 [16 favorites]
It does sound like Air Canada did a piss poor job of defending themselves (as they didn't have a good excuse).
posted by lookoutbelow at 2:05 PM on February 15 [29 favorites]
22. On February 8, an Air Canada representative responded and admitted the chatbot had provided “misleading words.” The representative pointed out the chatbot’s link to the bereavement travel webpage and said Air Canada had noted the issue so it could update the chatbot."remarkable" is the ultimate judicial shade.
...
26. Here, given their commercial relationship as a service provider and consumer, I find Air Canada owed Mr. Moffatt a duty of care. Generally, the applicable standard of care requires a company to take reasonable care to ensure their representations are accurate and not misleading.
27. Air Canada argues it cannot be held liable for information provided by one of its agents, servants, or representatives – including a chatbot. It does not explain why it believes that is the case. In effect, Air Canada suggests the chatbot is a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions. This is a remarkable submission. While a chatbot has an interactive component, it is still just a part of Air Canada’s website. It should be obvious to Air Canada that it is responsible for all the information on its website. It makes no difference whether the information comes from a static page or a chatbot.
28. I find Air Canada did not take reasonable care to ensure its chatbot was accurate. While Air Canada argues Mr. Moffatt could find the correct information on another part of its website, it does not explain why the webpage titled “Bereavement travel” was inherently more trustworthy than its chatbot. It also does not explain why customers should have to double-check information found in one part of its website on another part of its website.
29. Mr. Moffatt says, and I accept, that they relied upon the chatbot to provide accurate information. I find that was reasonable in the circumstances. There is no reason why Mr. Moffatt should know that one section of Air Canada’s webpage is accurate, and another is not.
posted by lookoutbelow at 2:05 PM on February 15 [29 favorites]
Really fucking petty to stiff bereaved people over $812 (Canadian!). They should've comped the tickets, and maybe paid a finders fee for discovering something that could damage Air Canada's business and reputation. Instead they have bad publicity that's likely to cost them much more.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:45 PM on February 15 [18 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 2:45 PM on February 15 [18 favorites]
Perhaps they used the chatbot to write their defense?
posted by greatgefilte at 2:46 PM on February 15 [10 favorites]
posted by greatgefilte at 2:46 PM on February 15 [10 favorites]
MetaFilter: It's accomplished very fast decisions and high satisfaction among participants with a genuinely mobile friendly online system, human case management, plain language decisions, and no lawyers allowed.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:47 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 2:47 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]
Just because we're bereaved doesn't make us saps!
posted by ryanrs at 2:58 PM on February 15 [6 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 2:58 PM on February 15 [6 favorites]
chatbots aren't liars, they're bullshitters.
posted by Clowder of bats at 3:10 PM on February 15 [7 favorites]
posted by Clowder of bats at 3:10 PM on February 15 [7 favorites]
It would have been so, so much cheaper to just give this customer a refund (honestly, comp the whole ticket) and then fixed the bot, but I guess somebody there thought it was better to blow who knows how much in lawyer fees to get their ass publicly mocked.
posted by emjaybee at 3:14 PM on February 15 [7 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 3:14 PM on February 15 [7 favorites]
>Please list the countries that declared war on Germany in 1945.
1. Japan: Although Germany surrendered in May 1945, Japan declared war on Germany on August 23, 1945, just before Japan surrendered to the Allies, effectively ending World War II.
Hallucinations indeed.
posted by torokunai at 3:20 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
1. Japan: Although Germany surrendered in May 1945, Japan declared war on Germany on August 23, 1945, just before Japan surrendered to the Allies, effectively ending World War II.
Hallucinations indeed.
posted by torokunai at 3:20 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
With all their ill-conceived AIs
And chatbots so full of lies
posted by credulous at 3:21 PM on February 15
And chatbots so full of lies
posted by credulous at 3:21 PM on February 15
How many people now absolutely loathe Air Canada?
Only now?? Their business model, for as far back as I can remember, is to be actively despised by all Canadians. I wasn't sure they could inspire me to hate them more than I already do, but I suppose you have to applaud the effort.
posted by selenized at 3:45 PM on February 15 [9 favorites]
Only now?? Their business model, for as far back as I can remember, is to be actively despised by all Canadians. I wasn't sure they could inspire me to hate them more than I already do, but I suppose you have to applaud the effort.
posted by selenized at 3:45 PM on February 15 [9 favorites]
Man you gotta give it to Air Canada for their aspiration to be shittier than Rogers.
posted by seanmpuckett at 3:48 PM on February 15 [6 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 3:48 PM on February 15 [6 favorites]
In 2018, I had a ticket from Barcelona to Toronto on Air Canada and needed to change it to Barcelona to Los Angeles. Their human support told me this was "impossible, regardless of whether you pay the difference".
"Why?"
This went on for like 30 minutes and eventually he finally said:
"Well, you've already used half of it to get to Barcelona three months ago."
"Are you suggesting that when you resell it the new passenger will know it was intended for me and that I'd 'used half'? Are you perhaps confusing a plane seat with a sandwich?"
"..."
"Hello?"
They said they would refund me and I could purchase another seat to LA. I said, "Great, please give me a confirmation number for the refund and I will then book the LA seat."
"You need to book the new seat first."
"But what if you encounter an error and then I have two tickets?!"
He reluctantly said fine and issued the refund and I hung up and booked my new flight with Norwegian Air. I have not flown Air Canada since whereas I'd only flown AC when leaving Toronto for the 10 years previous.
I honestly think these companies don't understand how the free market works or how customer service works. Why would I use them again when they treated me like shit?
posted by dobbs at 3:50 PM on February 15 [17 favorites]
"Why?"
This went on for like 30 minutes and eventually he finally said:
"Well, you've already used half of it to get to Barcelona three months ago."
"Are you suggesting that when you resell it the new passenger will know it was intended for me and that I'd 'used half'? Are you perhaps confusing a plane seat with a sandwich?"
"..."
"Hello?"
They said they would refund me and I could purchase another seat to LA. I said, "Great, please give me a confirmation number for the refund and I will then book the LA seat."
"You need to book the new seat first."
"But what if you encounter an error and then I have two tickets?!"
He reluctantly said fine and issued the refund and I hung up and booked my new flight with Norwegian Air. I have not flown Air Canada since whereas I'd only flown AC when leaving Toronto for the 10 years previous.
I honestly think these companies don't understand how the free market works or how customer service works. Why would I use them again when they treated me like shit?
posted by dobbs at 3:50 PM on February 15 [17 favorites]
*Slaps chatbot roof* This baby can generate so much legal liability!
posted by ursus_comiter at 3:50 PM on February 15 [39 favorites]
posted by ursus_comiter at 3:50 PM on February 15 [39 favorites]
I think part of the problem is that companies don’t want to advertise how much they’ve replaced their customer service with chatbots, in part because they know that no one wants to talk to a chatbot and everyone wants to talk to a human. So how would the customer have known it was a broken chatbot?
posted by corb at 4:25 PM on February 15 [4 favorites]
posted by corb at 4:25 PM on February 15 [4 favorites]
Air Canada argues it cannot be held liable for information provided by one of its agents, servants, or representatives – including a chatbot.
Leaving the chatbot stuff aside: this is arguing that an employer does not have any liability for its employees' actions. That can't be true, surely?
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 4:36 PM on February 15 [15 favorites]
Leaving the chatbot stuff aside: this is arguing that an employer does not have any liability for its employees' actions. That can't be true, surely?
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 4:36 PM on February 15 [15 favorites]
The court also rejected Air Canada's attempt to pay the fine with a .jpeg of a monkey that Air Canada said was worth "over $1,000."
The court said Air Canada "does not explain why it believes that is the case either."
posted by straight at 4:42 PM on February 15 [10 favorites]
The court said Air Canada "does not explain why it believes that is the case either."
posted by straight at 4:42 PM on February 15 [10 favorites]
As someone much more on the pro-AI side: good. The worst thing possible for those of us who want to see this technology develop further is for the quarterly earnings asshole squad to continue using it irresponsibly and without consequence.
Make ‘em squeal.
chatbots aren't liars, they're bullshitters.
posted by Clowder of bats
Accurate. Most of them are trained on every written word their development team could access circa 2021. In this respect LLMs are a mirror for the human race: they bullshit when they’ve run out of rope because that’s what we do.
When you’re a fixed language model with no capacity for on-the-fly adaptation, you run into patterns you haven’t encountered before on a fairly regular basis and hit the end of your rope almost immediately.
You know that moment in a social situation where you’re expected to respond with something thorough and insightful and instead just begin stammering out “uhhh… that is, um…?” Imagine being in that state nearly all of the ti-
Oh fuck. I just realized the chatbot was me all along.
posted by Ryvar at 5:01 PM on February 15 [5 favorites]
Make ‘em squeal.
chatbots aren't liars, they're bullshitters.
posted by Clowder of bats
Accurate. Most of them are trained on every written word their development team could access circa 2021. In this respect LLMs are a mirror for the human race: they bullshit when they’ve run out of rope because that’s what we do.
When you’re a fixed language model with no capacity for on-the-fly adaptation, you run into patterns you haven’t encountered before on a fairly regular basis and hit the end of your rope almost immediately.
You know that moment in a social situation where you’re expected to respond with something thorough and insightful and instead just begin stammering out “uhhh… that is, um…?” Imagine being in that state nearly all of the ti-
Oh fuck. I just realized the chatbot was me all along.
posted by Ryvar at 5:01 PM on February 15 [5 favorites]
Air Canada once advertised, on their customer contact page, "several weeks" for responses to email inquiries. I did take that at face value when I emailed a question about whether they would restart direct service from Maine to Toronto. Sure enough, something like 5 months later, an email response from a human trickled in, with a single word: "No."
posted by Jubal Kessler at 6:52 PM on February 15 [15 favorites]
posted by Jubal Kessler at 6:52 PM on February 15 [15 favorites]
Leaving the chatbot stuff aside: this is arguing that an employer does not have any liability for its employees' actions. That can't be true, surely?
It's not. While there are some exceptions, primarily involving actions clearly beyond the scope of an agent's authority or an employee's employment, this is nearly black-letter law false in common-law jurisdictions. Now, the judge's conclusion from this, that AC must be arguing that the chatbot was its own separate legal entity, isn't quite right either; an agent can absolutely be a separate legal entity from their principal (e.g., a law firm retained by a third-party corporation). Which makes me wonder a little whether the judge accurately summarized AC's submission to begin with, because as the judge puts it it's so shockingly incorrect.
Perhaps they used the chatbot to write their defense?
Honestly, my first thought!
posted by praemunire at 9:42 PM on February 15
It's not. While there are some exceptions, primarily involving actions clearly beyond the scope of an agent's authority or an employee's employment, this is nearly black-letter law false in common-law jurisdictions. Now, the judge's conclusion from this, that AC must be arguing that the chatbot was its own separate legal entity, isn't quite right either; an agent can absolutely be a separate legal entity from their principal (e.g., a law firm retained by a third-party corporation). Which makes me wonder a little whether the judge accurately summarized AC's submission to begin with, because as the judge puts it it's so shockingly incorrect.
Perhaps they used the chatbot to write their defense?
Honestly, my first thought!
posted by praemunire at 9:42 PM on February 15
It’s interesting that this tribunal is “no lawyers allowed.” Still you would think Air Canada had in-house counsel who could have prepared their representative employee a little better. Like helping them assemble the relevant evidence or coming up with literally any argument?
posted by cranberrymonger at 10:47 PM on February 15
posted by cranberrymonger at 10:47 PM on February 15
Yes... hahaha... yes!
May the LLM powered dreams of every starry eyed capitalist crumble to dust.
posted by signsofrain at 11:01 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
May the LLM powered dreams of every starry eyed capitalist crumble to dust.
posted by signsofrain at 11:01 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
Air Canada was represented at the tribunal by an employee, not external counsel, and probably not a lawyer. So it's possible that was the submission. But it's generally nuts and there's no basis to argue that a chatbot operated by Air Canada is akin to an employee or agent or contractor or any other legally recognized person. The representative also did this, so was pretty ineffective:
31. To the extent Air Canada argues it is not liable due to certain terms or conditions of its tariff, I note it did not provide a copy of the relevant portion of the tariff. It only included submissions about what the tariff allegedly says. Air Canada is a sophisticated litigant that should know it is not enough in a legal process to assert that a contract says something without actually providing the contract. The CRT also tells all parties are told to provide all relevant evidence. I find that if Air Canada wanted to a raise a contractual defense, it needed to provide the relevant portions of the contract. It did not, so it has not proven a contractual defence.posted by lookoutbelow at 11:18 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: $812 (Canadian!)
posted by Naberius at 6:22 AM on February 16 [2 favorites]
posted by Naberius at 6:22 AM on February 16 [2 favorites]
An LLM is going to be used for something very very important, perhaps in a behind-the-scenes role by someone who is incredibly stupid working without proper oversight. Thinking to a recent issue, I'm imagining some empty-suit using it in the unregulated off-books chat channel that was being used to goose the numbers on the regulated ticketing system at Spirit/Boeing. LLMs were not involved in the door falling off there but what would fail if it "hallucinated" something being fixed to satisfy the idiot at the keyboard?
These LLMs seems to want to work towards what people want to see on paper (legal brief hallucinations as an example) and then provide that. It can also be fairly convincing sounding and authoritative. So if you have three or four layers of quality checks but all of them are overworked and understaffed, my thinking is that an authoritative bullshit entry is like an armor piercing rocket. It might not succeed every time but it only takes one fuck up that gets through all three or four layers to kill a few hundred people or more.
Given the laziness involved in using this stuff I'm really getting Island of the Lotus Eater vibes from some of the proponents.
posted by Slackermagee at 6:32 AM on February 16 [1 favorite]
These LLMs seems to want to work towards what people want to see on paper (legal brief hallucinations as an example) and then provide that. It can also be fairly convincing sounding and authoritative. So if you have three or four layers of quality checks but all of them are overworked and understaffed, my thinking is that an authoritative bullshit entry is like an armor piercing rocket. It might not succeed every time but it only takes one fuck up that gets through all three or four layers to kill a few hundred people or more.
Given the laziness involved in using this stuff I'm really getting Island of the Lotus Eater vibes from some of the proponents.
posted by Slackermagee at 6:32 AM on February 16 [1 favorite]
The second-biggest airline in Canada is WestJet, which has risen to be a company with $4.8 billion in revenue annually largely on the strength of not being Air Canada.
As my father jests, “Air Canada: We’re not happy until you’re not happy.”
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:52 AM on February 16 [6 favorites]
As my father jests, “Air Canada: We’re not happy until you’re not happy.”
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:52 AM on February 16 [6 favorites]
Their business model, for as far back as I can remember, is to be actively despised by all Canadians.
Seems to me Bill Bryson once wrote, “You have to remember that most big companies don’t like you very much. The exceptions are hotels, airlines, and Microsoft, which don’t like you at all.”
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:54 AM on February 16 [6 favorites]
Seems to me Bill Bryson once wrote, “You have to remember that most big companies don’t like you very much. The exceptions are hotels, airlines, and Microsoft, which don’t like you at all.”
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:54 AM on February 16 [6 favorites]
I went down a rabbit hole a bit and looked at the list of other BCCRT decisions on claims against Air Canada. Occasionally they use in-house counsel, mostly they lead at least some of the necessary evidence but there are some other obvious failures. Most claims are higher value than this one because they're for the $1,000 compensation and delay expenses, so they seem a little more interested in defending themselves. Usually there's no news value like this one so not giving a shit doesn't hurt them much. It's really nice that the CRT always produces written decisions that are always released, there are zero reported decisions against Air Canada from the small claims court before or after the CRT took on their $5,000 jurisdiction. Plus they do consider their own past decisions persuasive and are happy to draw an adverse inference against Air Canada when they fail to explain how delays are not their fault. So BCians may as well complain if they're willing to put up the filing fee, as there's no such thing as costs awards for legal fees and the evidence process is all online with no need for in person office visits or hearings.
WestJet is kind of trash now too, and both have invented new gymnastic manipulations of the truth since the new delay compensation rules. WestJet doesn't overbook but they will cancel a flight on a dime and unilaterally rebook itineraries to avoid delay claims - like I had them do this when they knew (aka decided) their flight to another Canadian city was going to miss their connection and weren't willing to do anything about it so they cancelled a couple hours before and rebooked to arrive two days later. There's no such thing as a delay within their control according to them. Or during the crazy snow they cancelled without rebooking and didn't even tell me. Trash.
posted by lookoutbelow at 7:27 AM on February 16 [3 favorites]
WestJet is kind of trash now too, and both have invented new gymnastic manipulations of the truth since the new delay compensation rules. WestJet doesn't overbook but they will cancel a flight on a dime and unilaterally rebook itineraries to avoid delay claims - like I had them do this when they knew (aka decided) their flight to another Canadian city was going to miss their connection and weren't willing to do anything about it so they cancelled a couple hours before and rebooked to arrive two days later. There's no such thing as a delay within their control according to them. Or during the crazy snow they cancelled without rebooking and didn't even tell me. Trash.
posted by lookoutbelow at 7:27 AM on February 16 [3 favorites]
It’s interesting that this tribunal is “no lawyers allowed.”
A common, though not universal, feature of small-claims court. As you say, AC doubtless had some kind of in-house counsel to help with preparation of the submission.
posted by praemunire at 7:59 AM on February 16 [1 favorite]
A common, though not universal, feature of small-claims court. As you say, AC doubtless had some kind of in-house counsel to help with preparation of the submission.
posted by praemunire at 7:59 AM on February 16 [1 favorite]
Regarding the use/abuse of AI, this is absolutely the right decision. I strongly believe that any person or business that deploys AI must bear 100% of the risk and responsibility for doing so, as if it were their own actions and decisions. And no hiding behind a 3rd party AI supplier. If business A employs the services of AI supplier B, and there is harm to a customer of A, then A is still 100% liable for the harm (though A can of course still sue B).
And ... sad but not surprised that this is Air Canada.
Speaking of delays, here's how every airline should do it: Coming back from Europe last fall on Air France/KLM, the first hop to Amsterdam got delayed so much that we couldn't have made the connection. So they rebooked us for the next day, and covered the extra day of hotel and meals. When we got home, we submitted our claim online, and our bills were reimbursed and a decent compensation paid out, within the week.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:18 AM on February 16 [1 favorite]
And ... sad but not surprised that this is Air Canada.
Speaking of delays, here's how every airline should do it: Coming back from Europe last fall on Air France/KLM, the first hop to Amsterdam got delayed so much that we couldn't have made the connection. So they rebooked us for the next day, and covered the extra day of hotel and meals. When we got home, we submitted our claim online, and our bills were reimbursed and a decent compensation paid out, within the week.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:18 AM on February 16 [1 favorite]
Since the entire proceeding is in writing, there's nothing to stop them from having lawyers do everything. I'm guessing it wasn't worth it to them for ~$600 dollars, but the results show how that went.
posted by lookoutbelow at 8:45 AM on February 16
posted by lookoutbelow at 8:45 AM on February 16
Speaking of delays, here's how every airline should do it: Coming back from Europe last fall on Air France/KLM, the first hop to Amsterdam got delayed so much that we couldn't have made the connection. So they rebooked us for the next day, and covered the extra day of hotel and meals. When we got home, we submitted our claim online, and our bills were reimbursed and a decent compensation paid out, within the week.
That's EU regulations, not the kindness of KLM.
posted by praemunire at 9:39 AM on February 16 [4 favorites]
That's EU regulations, not the kindness of KLM.
posted by praemunire at 9:39 AM on February 16 [4 favorites]
It’s interesting that this tribunal is “no lawyers allowed.”
A common, though not universal, feature of small-claims court.
I wonder how they handle it when lawyers get sued in small claims court.
posted by corb at 9:59 AM on February 16 [1 favorite]
A common, though not universal, feature of small-claims court.
I wonder how they handle it when lawyers get sued in small claims court.
posted by corb at 9:59 AM on February 16 [1 favorite]
I am so glad the judge slapped down the bullshit arguments Air Canada was trying. Like, no, if you're a customer and the official chatbot tells you a thing, you do not, in fact, have to fucking verify it against some other official Air Canada source. IT HAS ONE JOB.
posted by rmd1023 at 10:25 AM on February 16 [2 favorites]
posted by rmd1023 at 10:25 AM on February 16 [2 favorites]
That's EU regulations, not the kindness of KLM.
... yes. More jurisdictions should follow suit. I am still grateful that it was so straightforward and fast to get the compensation. No haggling or arguing, no foot-dragging.
posted by Artful Codger at 10:28 AM on February 16 [5 favorites]
... yes. More jurisdictions should follow suit. I am still grateful that it was so straightforward and fast to get the compensation. No haggling or arguing, no foot-dragging.
posted by Artful Codger at 10:28 AM on February 16 [5 favorites]
You do hear horror stories on FlyerTalk about foot-dragging, but it's certainly much better to have a regulatory floor.
posted by praemunire at 11:24 AM on February 16 [1 favorite]
posted by praemunire at 11:24 AM on February 16 [1 favorite]
Driving customers away aren't fucking "durable savings," you MBA shit bags.
Ah, but have you considered monopoly as a business strategy?
posted by klanawa at 2:31 PM on February 16 [1 favorite]
Ah, but have you considered monopoly as a business strategy?
posted by klanawa at 2:31 PM on February 16 [1 favorite]
This is relevant to my interests @jacquilynne! I am a fan of AI yet aware that a well-meaning chatbot could cause me harm. I'm doing my grad school thesis on user trust of genAI/LLMs.
Lawsuits are a great way to create awareness that AI is not an all-knowing entity. LLMs know how to generate a statistically probable answer, and all my favorite MeFites (all of you, you are all my favorite!) recognize that "statistically probable" is not the same as "correct". I worry that decision-makers don't.
posted by boomdelala at 4:39 PM on February 16 [1 favorite]
Lawsuits are a great way to create awareness that AI is not an all-knowing entity. LLMs know how to generate a statistically probable answer, and all my favorite MeFites (all of you, you are all my favorite!) recognize that "statistically probable" is not the same as "correct". I worry that decision-makers don't.
posted by boomdelala at 4:39 PM on February 16 [1 favorite]
"God is dead and we rule the sky now." (No, not AI-related but just another take on how and why Air Canada is SO beloved.)
posted by sardonyx at 8:11 PM on February 16
posted by sardonyx at 8:11 PM on February 16
WestJet is kind of trash now too, and both have invented new gymnastic manipulations of the truth since the new delay compensation rules.
Airlines in this country have a long-standing race to the bottom.
About fifteen years ago I was living in Ottawa and was back visiting family and friends in southern Ontario over Xmas/New Year’s. I was heading back to Ottawa on the first weekend of the new year and was flying Porter out of the Toronto Island airport.
That’s a fairly busy travel day, and the pre-renovation airport was a little overtaxed. I got in a daunting line, and eventually made my way to the counter. The CSR asked my name twice, checked my ID carefully, and frowned at her screen for long enough to awaken the beginnings of concern on my part. I was just reaching the point of asking if there was an issue when she spoke up: “Sir, I appears you booked this flight for yesterday.” I am of course an idiot, so that probably checks out, and yes, my ticket had been for the Saturday and here we were on Sunday afternoon. She continued: “I can get you onto the same flight today, but there will be a surcharge for the change.” I said that was fine, as I had to be back at work the following morning in Ottawa. I braced myself to take the financial hit. “It’ll be fifty dollars.”
Much relief. I prepared to pay, when I looked over at the crowd at the security gate (the backlog was caused there: at that point, they had two x-ray scanners and one had broken down that day). I asked the agent, “My flight boards in just under an hour. Are we sure I can get through that line in time?”
She followed my gaze. “Good point. Tell you what: if you want to go an hour later, we’ll waive the fifty dollars.” Sold!
Life rarely produces perfect experiments with a control and everything, but a few days later I was talking to friends in Ottawa. One had, it turns out, been in an equivalent situation a year earlier with Air Canada in Vancouver: flying back to Ottawa after Xmas, booked for the wrong day, standing in the concourse on a Sunday when he had to be back at work the following day. AC’s solution: “Oh, we can still get you there today. That’ll be $1300, please.”
These days, btw, Porter seems indistinguishable from the larger airlines. I date the decline and fall from the day they stopped having free refreshments and snacks in their gate areas.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:34 AM on February 17 [3 favorites]
Airlines in this country have a long-standing race to the bottom.
About fifteen years ago I was living in Ottawa and was back visiting family and friends in southern Ontario over Xmas/New Year’s. I was heading back to Ottawa on the first weekend of the new year and was flying Porter out of the Toronto Island airport.
That’s a fairly busy travel day, and the pre-renovation airport was a little overtaxed. I got in a daunting line, and eventually made my way to the counter. The CSR asked my name twice, checked my ID carefully, and frowned at her screen for long enough to awaken the beginnings of concern on my part. I was just reaching the point of asking if there was an issue when she spoke up: “Sir, I appears you booked this flight for yesterday.” I am of course an idiot, so that probably checks out, and yes, my ticket had been for the Saturday and here we were on Sunday afternoon. She continued: “I can get you onto the same flight today, but there will be a surcharge for the change.” I said that was fine, as I had to be back at work the following morning in Ottawa. I braced myself to take the financial hit. “It’ll be fifty dollars.”
Much relief. I prepared to pay, when I looked over at the crowd at the security gate (the backlog was caused there: at that point, they had two x-ray scanners and one had broken down that day). I asked the agent, “My flight boards in just under an hour. Are we sure I can get through that line in time?”
She followed my gaze. “Good point. Tell you what: if you want to go an hour later, we’ll waive the fifty dollars.” Sold!
Life rarely produces perfect experiments with a control and everything, but a few days later I was talking to friends in Ottawa. One had, it turns out, been in an equivalent situation a year earlier with Air Canada in Vancouver: flying back to Ottawa after Xmas, booked for the wrong day, standing in the concourse on a Sunday when he had to be back at work the following day. AC’s solution: “Oh, we can still get you there today. That’ll be $1300, please.”
These days, btw, Porter seems indistinguishable from the larger airlines. I date the decline and fall from the day they stopped having free refreshments and snacks in their gate areas.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:34 AM on February 17 [3 favorites]
Peter Watts (aka Squidnapper) wrote about this in his newsletter today. My favourite line was the last one:
When it comes to cool, bleeding-edge tech, William Gibson once observed that “The street finds its own uses for things”. What he forgot to mention, apparently, is that at least one of those uses is “being a dick”.
posted by sauril at 5:35 PM on February 18
When it comes to cool, bleeding-edge tech, William Gibson once observed that “The street finds its own uses for things”. What he forgot to mention, apparently, is that at least one of those uses is “being a dick”.
posted by sauril at 5:35 PM on February 18
« Older A financial-advice columnist falls for an... | With the heat of 1000 suns Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jacquilynne at 1:36 PM on February 15 [11 favorites]