I know of a guy who had his driver’s license permanently revoked because he racked up so many DUI’s. He lived in rural Indiana, and bought a moped because they didn’t require a license to drive. Obviously he did not stop driving drunk.
But also, the moped did in fact make noise.
There’s an equally valid chance they are not and will not be my “ally” at any point.
I say that because having been burned by the AI they used and regardless to whether or not they see posts like this one online, they seem more worried about the fact that this order may be valid than they do about the fact that this chatbot gave a completely hallucinated discount code at all.
A lawyer, not reddit, should be determining whether or not this person is liable for honoring the discount. I suspect they are not even on the hook for what the chatbot promised, legally speaking. And all of that assumes this is even a real thing that happened and not some random bot account on reddit making it up for clout or karma farming.
The vast majority of people aren’t even pointing and laughing. They are asking “what did you expect?”. That’s a valid question.
Falling for marketing doesn’t absolve anyone of their responsibility to do their own due diligence. A cursory search of the internet would provide thousands of hits explaining the pros and cons of such a chatbot.
If this doesn’t change this (potentially fabricated) persons mind about AI I’m not sure what will.
They are a business owner asking online if they can ignore an order after using a chatbot to communicate with and interface with customers. They failed in their duties to themselves and their customers by not vetting the tools they allowed on their website.
This is on them. I’m not celebrating that they are in a bad position. But I’m not surprised that this happened and I don’t feel empathy for someone who should have known better. If it can happen to giant airlines and big tech firms, it can happen to you, and since the small business owner doesn’t have the market cap to offset such a “mistake”, they get what they paid for.
Nobody forced them to become an entrepreneur. Nobody forced them to use a chatbot on their website. Nobody forced them to not explore the functionality of their chatbot, or not put guardrails on it.
There are plenty of websites and storefronts that have order forms that just work. There wasn’t a need to use the chatbot to take orders.
This is a costly lesson for this shop owner, but it’s a lesson they could have learned from watching others. Instead they chose to get a first hand experience of the pitfalls of using AI as a customer support medium.
Sigh. I wish Russia could be a better place to live. Jailing people for liking popular media is nuts by just about ever metric.
That’s wonderful. Would not that cost be better spent designing roads that deter speeding by design?
Buses cost money to run, and rural upstate New York (just like a lot of rural areas that are car dependant) do not necessarily have the infrastructure to implement them. Which is exactly why I said shuttles, not buses.
Public transit isn’t going to pop out of the ether to fix the problem so that we can just take away people’s personal property because they broke the law as if they no longer own it. Civil forfeiture is already a broken law without us making it worse for poor people while rich people continue to get a pass.
They’ll buy new vehicles. You can legally purchase a car without a driver’s license in most states. You just have to have someone who can legally drive it off the lot of deliver it. Which is simple for a rich person, but not for a poor person.
Like it could be if we were willing to spend the amount of money it would cost to build and upkeep that infrastructure. But that would also likely mean civil forfeiture of land. Because bus stops and side walks and depots don’t just show up because you want to take people’s cars away.
The cost of all that, plus the cost of implementing the ability to store or sell these vehicles is going to be problematic and more costly than the proposal, which is more fair than the alternative because it treats people regardless of the economic situation the same.
I don’t like the proposal, but I can certainly understand why it’s being proposed as a better way to fix the problem.
Is the plan to store these cars they’re seizing in your plan somewhere? To sell them?
How much is the cost of seizing and storing a vehicle? How much is the cost of building a place to house these seized vehicles?
Who pays that cost?
Where is such a facility going to be built?
Even if you did sell the vehicles, who gets the proceeds? What stops the person from suing the state or municipality for selling items that don’t belong to them?
That’s even before we think about the economic impact of these people living in a very car dependant place where that vehicle makes the difference between being able to have access to food and transportation to get to work.
Is the state going to provide shuttles to get these people groceries and to and from work? Who pays for that?
I have a lot of questions about why you’d want it to be okay to seize the property of a person just because they broke the law.
Police can and do already seize and sell assets whether you have committed a crime or not. Usually people want to end such overreach but now you’re all the sudden siding with the gestapo in order to seize people’s assets because you feel self righteous?
The math doesn’t math on this.
What if the car doesn’t belong to them? Are we going to suddenly start seizing the assets of someone who leant them the vehicle?
Much better to spend tax payer money to design and implement road features that inhibit speeding.
You’re right. But that can only last so long.
Didn’t Ford’s CEO just say they wanted highschool graduates who could do math to be automotive techs making $120K a year?
Plumbers already make ridiculous amounts of money because there aren’t enough of them.
The median age in my field 5-10 years ago was 55 years old and we aren’t getting an influx of new A&P licensed techs still. The main way the Aviation industry gets it’s techs these days is the military and that’s not even a sure fire way.
Like. CEO’s doing trades when? Because he’s clearly mistaken if he thinks that it’s not going to be CEO’s and upper management people who get their jobs replaced by AI.
They keep trying to replace engineers, software devs and so on with AI at all the tech companies and then having to back out of that decision to keep things running.
You don’t own a shovel? If you have hands, you can make a shovel. We will need the shovels for the mass grave after the elite are all gone. You know, so we don’t allow the spread of diseases from necrotizing flesh.
That’s not what you said. You said they never receive updates.
FBI director breaking opsec best practices and regulations every chance he gets like it’s going out of style. Why show up to a conference where other people could talk about that?
My mother had one that she used for her vanity.
Especially in one of the most regulated industries on the planet.
From what I read, that $4BN number could be taken two ways. I don’t know if that analyst excluded the games Valve developed, and that $4BN is games sales of everything else, or if that’s what they made from their own titles. I didn’t want to go through the rigamarole of Xitter to see the direct quote and I haven’t had a chance to find it in the internet archive.
I also kind of want a good run down of what steam offers to developers that makes their platform so attractive because my understanding is it’s more than just e-shop services and that’s one of the reasons I have seen touted as why people feel the service fee is reasonable.
I didn’t want to leave you on read, but I also am still looking up all kinds of random information to put together.
Also, my confusion is because there are two different lawsuits involving the 30% cut of game sales.
There’s a class action lawsuit in the UK involving all of steams consumers there, predicated on the idea that the 30% service fee makes games more expensive to the detriment if those consumers.
And there’s a different class action lawsuit brought by developers Wolfire and Dark Catt representing every developer who uses Steam as an E-Shop platform, also over the 30% service fee and alleged anti-competitve practices (Wolfire say that Steam told them they couldn’t sell their game anywhere else for less than it was available on Steam (even if they didn’t use steams license keys)).
I know I can come off as really terse, and tone is hard via text anyway. But thank you for addressing it.
Sorry about yet another wall of text.
By sold cheaper I meant MSRP price, not sale price.
You’re not being annoying. It’s probably because I lost track and for what it’s worth I am sorry, I’ll try to fix it but probably won’t catch all of them.
Tell him he’s beautiful and I like his hoodie.
I can’t corroborate that Steam’s revenue for the e-shop was $16Bn. The best estimate that I have is that their game sales netted them $4Bn last year. I’m still trying to find a better source for that. However we may both be wrong here.
Military industrial complex says “what”.