| I applaud his efforts to document this what must’ve been a nightmare of a case for him. But it felt like a lot of the wording is speculative or hyperbolic in nature and aggressively tries to paint Volvo in a bad light. For example: “Analysis of Volvo's Final Response: This response … confirms Volvo's complete abandonment of customer responsibility…This is Volvo's definition of ‘customer care’ in 2025.” “Center Display Failure - Critical Interface Blackout: Main Controls Inaccessible” “Climate Control Malfunction - Climate System Override: Controls Unresponsive Despite Interface Status” “Complete Center Screen Malfunction - Total System Breakdown: Hard Reset Failed to Restore Screen” I know little about Volvo or this case; I’m choosing to offer them some benefits of doubt. Comms and decision making are prone to break down on the corporate ladder. Volvo had no doubt fumbled his case badly but I’m not convinced it is indicative of the company’s overall customer support policy. Sure, the main touchscreen had failed. But how is this an “override” of HVAC or a “total system breakdown”? And what’s the “system” anyways? On top of all that, these subtitle summaries smell like AI. I don’t deny that Volvo has a lot to answer for. Though the choice of these instigating descriptions might not be the best one giving the author is actively pursuing litigation. |
Part of it is that he clearly used ChatGPT or Claude to write the prose. (I really should not have to explain how, despite not reading the OP at all, your example quote alone establishes that. You see this kind of hyperbolic unordered list/checklist all the time now. This seems like more of a Claude tic, but could also be ChatGPT due to sheer base rates.)
Being sycophantic and ordered to write polemic, a LLM'll go overboard.