Random links/videos/tweets/etc.

[Uncle]

Common law does not recognize technology as being human equivalent and requires paths to be traced back to the human who caused technology to produce which would lead back to you instructing the chatbot how to act.

I feel like if product packaging can mislead you and lead to a settlement (it didn't say the coffee was hot, it didn't warn me not to take 5 pills at once), surely a chatbot representing a company is at least equivalent to a form of signage? the person held responsible is the person who failed to warn the consumer/implemented the bright idea of an agreeable chatbot

you could argue that decades of using company chatbots online has trained you to assume that you're talking to a real person who can can help you with your problem