[bumby]

>To me the expectations of this having to be legally binding, etc just seem misguided.

I think you're getting my point confused with a tangentially related one. Your point may be "chatbots shouldn't be legally binding" and I would tend to agree. But my point was that simply throwing a disclaimer on it may not be the best way to get there.

Consider if poison control uses a chatbot to answer phone calls and give advice. They can't waive their responsibility by just throwing a disclaimer on it. It doesn't meet the current strict liability standards regarding what kind of duty is required. There is such a thing in law as "duty creep," and there may be a liability if a jury finds it a reasonable expectation that a chatbot provides accurate answers. To my point, the duty is going to be largely context-dependent, and that means broad-brushed superficial "solutions" probably aren't sufficient.

[mewpmewp2]

The topic wasn't about someone calling poison control, it was about bad actors trying to trick ChatBot into absurd contracts.

[bumby]

I used that analogy because it’s painfully clear how it can go off the rails. The common thread is that legality isn’t simply waived in all cases. Legality is determined by reasonableness and, in some cases, by an expectation of duty. I don’t believe the Chevy example constitutes a contract but not for the reasons you’ve presented. Thinking you can just say “lol nothing here is binding but thanks for the money!” without understanding broader context is indicative of a cavalier attitude and superficial understanding.