[AnthonyMouse]

> The safety valve here is that judges and juries do test against whether a reasonable person would believe a stated offer or policy; I can't trick a chatbot into offering me a billion dollars for nothing and get a court to hold a company to it.

Sure, but a billion people could each trick it into offering them $100, which would bankrupt the airline.

> they should be on the hook for false advertising to the customer and unfair competition against Chevrolet and Toyota.

But all you're really doing is requiring everyone to put a banner on everything that says "for entertainment purposes only". Because if something like that gets them out of the liability then that's what everybody is going to do. And if it doesn't then you're effectively banning the technology, because "have it not make stuff up" isn't a thing they know how to do.

[Zak]

Courts probably aren't going to enforce any promise of money for nothing or responses prompted by obvious trickery, but they might enforce promises of discounts, and are very likely to enforce promises of rebates as the court in this case did.

If that means companies can't use chatbots to replace customer service agents yet, so be it.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Courts probably aren't going to enforce any promise of money for nothing or responses prompted by obvious trickery, but they might enforce promises of discounts, and are very likely to enforce promises of rebates as the court in this case did.

But what does that matter? So someone posts on Reddit how to trick the chatbot into offering a rebate and then 75% of their customers have done it by the time they realize what's going on and now they're out of business.

> If that means companies can't use chatbots to replace customer service agents yet, so be it.

You're still not articulating any way to distinguish "customer service" from any other functioning chatbot. A general purpose chatbot will answer customer service questions, so how does this not just ban all of them?