this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
749 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
59559 readers
3408 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Surprised Air Canada's lawyers had the bravado to make claims like this. So glad they lost, I hope this becomes precedent for anything similar.
I could see this simply resulting in every chatbot having a disclaimer that it might be spitting straight bullshit and you should not use it for legal advice.
At this point, I do consider this a positive outcome, too, because it's not always made obvious whether you're talking with something intelligent or just a text generator.
But yeah, I would still prefer, if companies simply had to have intelligent support. This race to the bottom isn't helping humanity.
That won't hold up, though.
I don't know about that. From the article:
I don't know if small claims create precedent in the same way that a normal lawsuit would.
Can only speak for the UK but as the lowest civil court here, small claims decisions are not binding on any other court (including other small claims courts) but they are considered "pervasive" and thus a judge should be aware and take them into consideration.
Yeah, I mean, at the very least, it's a solid argumentation. Any judge who's given a similar case and doesn't look up, if someone else already dealt with such a case, is just doing a disservice to themselves...