Sorry, but no. These AI products are selling themselves as arbiters of truth. There is zero point in using them if you have to verify everything afterwards (hence why I do not use them). There should be reprecussions for hallucinations that cause financial loss, especially if you pay to use them.

> These AI products are selling themselves as arbiters of truth.

Nonsense. They very explicitly are not doing that (if only for obvious legal reasons). Disclaimers everywhere.

@dinfinity You're right about disclaimers. But there's a disconnect between:

Marketing: "Most capable AI assistant" Reality: 30% accuracy + mockery + no support Price: $200/month

If they want to hide behind disclaimers, they should price accordingly. Or better yet, their disclaimer should read: "May insult you and ignore your complaints."

I'm sorry, but you are being melodramatic. The pricing is in no way a guarantee for LLM accuracy, especially for somebody even remotely technical (you're on Github and HackerNews).

If my grandmother had this experience, I would not blame her for being ignorant of LLM hallucination and demanding better service, but for somebody technical to go to such lengths to complain after they got burnt makes me think that the 'insult' was actually pretty accurate.

Yeah, but for every technical person that "should know better," there are ten people who don't know better who are likely to get similarly duped.

Disclaimers like speed limits. The sign says 55 (88 kph); everyone does 70 (112 kph) or more without impunity because the road is designed for it.

@nkrisc @DrillShopper I accept responsibility for the $270.

But can we also discuss: - AI calling customers "증명충"? - 25 days of silence from an "ethics" company? - What this means for AI safety?

This isn't just about me. It's about the future we're building.

It does sound like terrible customer service. Sounds like a company I would not do business with.

Yeah, I would agree that the state of AI/human interactions currently sucks, and there is no path forward that makes it suck less.

I'm sorry this happened to you, but most of the damage here was self inflicted.

Why do that when you can blame sparkling autocomplete for your utter lack of performing due diligence?

I'm pretty tough on AI stuff, but this is on the user.

I think that's besides the point. We have lawyers, doctors, teachers using this technology. Imagine how much worse it's going to get.

I believe the point is: "WHO is responsible when the user uses this technology incorrectly?"

OP's position is that someone else should reimburse them for their own errors. Are you siding with the OP and suggesting that if a lawyer, doctor, or teacher misused the technology that they too shouldn't be responsible for it?

Because that's the crux of this. Responsibility.

No, I totally agree that (mis)users of the technology should be responsible. The terrifying thing is just how much faith people in society are putting in this tech.

Since when has following the advice of a customer service agent been using technology incorrectly?

It might not be the sole responsibility of the customer service agent, but it is certainly their fault for giving bad advice.

It is completely reasonable to rely on the public statements of a company.

That said unless a someone at the company steps up, this seems like an issue for something like small claims court.

Lawyers and doctors who follow the advice of AI blindly without verifying will likely end up getting sanctioned rather quickly by their respective licensing bodies.

Until the licensing bodies use AI to decide sanctions... ;)