Hacker News Reader

Comment by callc | Hacker News Reader

A good time to teach a hard lesson about the trustworthiness of LLM output

This will lead to a major class-action lawsuit soon enough.

I've never seen such a half-assed thing being adopted by so many people so completely and without reservation. The future seems really dysfunctional.

Yes, you are right, I agree with you.

Lesson to whom, is the question.

The venue organizers also ended up with a shit experience (and angry potential customer) while having nothing to do with the BS.

> (and angry potential customer)

An angry potential customer who demands one work for free is probably not the kind of business arrangement that most folks would find agreeable. I don’t know where these people get off, but they’re free riders on the information superhighway. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

That same person might have actually paid money if they weren’t (somewhat legitimately) lied to about it being free. Or just not gone.

Instead it’s the worst outcome for everyone, and everyone is angry and thinks each other are assholes. I guess that does sum up America the last few years eh?

The anger is misdirected, as it is a reaction to being confronted with one’s own ignorance and then shooting the messenger. In the hypothetical, that is. I don’t look at it as a lie exactly on the part of AI, but a failure of the user to actually check first party authoritative sources for that kind of info before showing up and acting entitled to a bill of goods you were never sold for any price. Even if it were free, you would still have to show up and claim a badge or check in, at which point they are free to present you with terms and conditions while you attend the event. I think the story says more about users and how they are marketed to than it does about AI and its capabilities. I think AI will probably get better faster than people will get used to the new post-AI normal, and maybe even after that. A lot of market participants seem to want that to happen, so some growing pains are normal with these kinds of disruptive technologies.

> That same person might have actually paid money if they weren’t (somewhat legitimately) lied to about it being free. Or just not gone.

His problem.

When people like that show up and start screaming and yelling at the staff, it’s everyone’s problem.

People like that are screaming at somebody wherever they might be at the moment. There isn't any technical solutions to them.

Having a technology platform point someone at a specific venue and then lying about a ton of details (including costs) is not that situation at all.

Frankly, most people would be angry in that situation.

If somebody is a person who demands to get something for nothing from complete strangers and then get mad when they don't - well that person has very low value as a human until they can find enlightenment. These guys are definitely not in the majority of people.

There are reasonable reactions in this situation: Either be grateful that you got something for free, or accept that you were misinformed and pay what is asked, alternatively leave.

But let's be honest about this particular situation: The visitor had checked the event online, maybe first with ChatGPT and then on the official website. They noticed that the AI had made a mistake and thought they could abuse that to try to get in for free.

Everybody who works with the general public for restaurants, hospitality, events or retail recognize this kind of "customer", who are a small minority which you have to deal with sometimes. There are some base people who live their lives trying to find loop holes and ways to take advantage of others, while at the same time constantly being on the verge of a massive outrage over how unfairly they are being treated.

This whole thread has a weird ‘ChatGPT is not at fault for passing off flat out bullshit as truth’ vibe. Wtf?

It is at fault for lying, but only a base person would go out in the real world and try to make other people responsible for the lies they were told by a robot.

A base and egocentric person.

And ChatGPT pointed said person right at an innocent third party.

ChatGPT pointed them at an authority figure who informed them of the situation from their point of view. Some folks don’t handle being corrected or being told that they are wrong or mistaken very well. I’m willing to let ChatGPT share some of the blame, but the human in the loop is determined to shirk all responsibility rightfully borne by them, so I’m less willing to give them any benefit of the doubt. I don’t doubt that they are being entirely unreasonable, so I don’t think their interpretation of events is relevant to how ChatGPT operates generally.

Unreasonable people are wrong to be unreasonable. This is not new. Technological solutions don’t map to problems of interpersonal relations neatly, as this example shows.

I think you misunderstand who the victims of this situation is (hint probably everybody but google)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com