this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2025
850 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

71396 readers
3470 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
850
Half of companies planning to replace customer service with AI are reversing course (www.techspot.com)
submitted 1 day ago by bimbimboy@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world
165 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 103 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] deafboy@lemmy.world 20 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Someone already tried.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico%2C_Inc.

[–] lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works 15 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

What a cucked judgement. I would have ruled for the plaintiff, with prejudice

[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Tell me you know nothing about contract law without telling me you know nothing about contract law.

[–] lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 hours ago

It was a joke, mate. A simple jest. A jape, if you will

[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 10 points 15 hours ago

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

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?

Guy should’ve gotten his Harrier.