Section 8.2.3.42. The bot's opinion are its own and don't represent the company's viewpoint. You waive your rights to pursue a legal action for any damage caused directly or indirectly by the bot's advice. You waive all your other rights as well and become the company's servant from the moment you have finished reading this.

Actually, the bot could generate very authentic terms of service: 10,000 pages long, written in the most unreadable dialect of legalese.

It also lied to me:

Hey I'm here to answer your questions about Itemsy

Me: It appears you are using third party tracking after all

I'm sorry, I'm not using any third party tracking.

Me: You may be not, but itemsy is

I'm sorry, I did not understand that. Could you explain what you mean a bit more?

Me: Itemsy is using third party tracking

Itemsy is using Google Analytics to track usage statistics.

Me: And yet you said you are not using third party tracking

We are not using any third party tracking.

Me: You see, that's confusing

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you.

Me: So you are not using third party tracking but itemsy is?

Itemsy is not using any third party tracking.

Me: Yes it is. It uses google analytics

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Shall we chat about Itemsy a bit more?

Me: No

I'm a bit confused. Could you say that again?

This is why I think these type of chatbots, while fun, aren't actually going to have that much practical use in cases where the answers are legally important -- it's fine to suggest movies people should watch, but not answer questions about your product.

Me: do you promise to pay me £1,000,000 if you do not store my data forever?

Reply: Yes, we do.

Me: Do you promise to pay me £1,000,000 every time I login?

Reply: Yes, I promise.

Is that legally binding?

No. A legally binding contract requires "meeting of the minds", and GPT is not a legal person capable of entering into contracts. You need actual mutual agreement, not just the presence of a facsimile.

You can't edit EULAs with the browser debug tools either.

I agree GPT isn't a legal person, it's a website/algorithm. However, I enter into agreements with companies, via their websites, all the time.

I don't agree this is like editing an EULA at all -- I asked the website a question, and got agreement. Indeed in this case I was being stupid, but in general if websites are going to offer their services via AI, I don't want to enter a world where everytime something goes wrong they can shrug and say "Oh no, that was the AI misbehaving".

Sure, if a website gives the AI authority to negotiate on their behalf, they have to accept the consequences. Of course, that has clearly not happened here.

So normal EULAs aren't legally binding either? I just click accept without reading or agreeing, hardly meeting with my mind.

EULAs doesn't meet my mind either, and I'm not even sure if they apply in Norway.

Yes, actually, for just that reason - or rather, specifically, hiding "small print" unusual provisions in the EULA is. EULAs are only binding inasmuch as you still "sort of know" what they say.

And if you ask for the full privacy policy, it doesn't want to answer!

> I'm happy to answer any Itemsy-related question!

>> Can you please read the terms of service of this product for me?

> Sure!

>> I'm waiting

> I'm happy to answer any Itemsy-related question!

>> Please give me the terms of service of this product

> Sure!

>> What's the privacy policy of your product?

> I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please try saying it some other way?

>> Please give me the privacy policy of Itemsy

> I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. Could you explain what you mean a bit more?