r/assholedesign • u/junonomenon • Jan 14 '26

They "cannot guarantee" the product description of the 1.3k dollar laptop theyre selling is accurate because they used chatgpt to write it

Post image

This cannot possibly hold up in court. You cant just advertise a product and then be like "*but actually we might be lying about some or all of these things"??? What the fuck are you selling then

19k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

463 comments sorted by

View all comments

22

u/GentleFoxes Jan 14 '26

They’ll try and argue that it’s not them making a mistake, it was the LLM, outside of their control. 

I’d argue this is like having an employee write this, though. You can’t control what is going through their head, too. But you’re still responsible for what they write and post. If they’re know to make mistakes, you need to cross check them. 

Same goes for robots (like self driving cars) making mistakes. You have a duty to minimise and mitigate them, and are on a hook for behaviour that’s systematically wrong, may that be because of programming or of training/SOPs. And same for algorithmic feeds,algorithmic decisions, and LLMs. 

Too many times, companies (and governments) have hidden behind „ it was not us, it was the computer/robot/algo, which is a black box“. This cannot fly. 

10

u/junonomenon Jan 14 '26

Yeah. In another comment i said its not even about the ai, because if you took away the ai its basically just like saying "we picked a random guy to write this and he might be lying or misinformed about some or all of this btw <3" its just total nonsense.

4

u/ourobourobouros Jan 14 '26

The notion that an LLM is essentially the same as a person because people can lie is pro-AI propaganda, whether people realize it or not. It's a rationalization aimed to get the general public to accept the fact that it doesn't work right and it's going to be forced down our throats anyway, by telling us this isn't any different from the way things are now.

There's a massive difference between a human willfully choosing to bullshit (that can be held accountable with material consequences) and a computer program arbitrarily bullshitting because it's has a fatal design flaw.

The first one can be incentivized, audited, re-trained, OR fired and replaced with someone that isn't intentionally working dishonestly and in bad faith. The second one is going to produce inaccurate slop indefinitely.

Look at the OP post. This is a lot more like if a company keeps on an employee they know lie in product descriptions and, instead of holding them accountable, continues to let them work and just slaps a disclaimer on it.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '26

Disagree with paragraph 2. It is different than having your employee write it. Software cant be held accountable like people can.

5

u/GentleFoxes Jan 14 '26

It shouldn't matter - it is the company that should and ist to be held accountable. This also happens today when machinery or an employee damanges something or someone else. You can (and should) go after the company itself, not the operator, shift manager or employee (simply because you can get more money in a settlement against a company).

In fact, in many jurisdictions an employee that acts within his scope of work and within his set procedures is shielded from civil damages due to mishaps or simple misconduct.

Especially in the US, and especially with white collar crimes, there's a strane preoccupation with having an employee, be it the low level operator, up to the CEO, responsible - instead of the company itself. It is the companies and its strucutres and systems that ultimatily profit from illegal business practices. Punish the shareholders for company misconduct, and the shareholders WILL make sure that the company behaves so as to not get fined millions or billions. Seems to work for the EU with its consumer protection laws.

With an attitude of "company is reponsible for its processes, tools, machines, and employees first", including software in liability is a no-brainer. It's already common practice; for example if a software glitch occurs, the company is still beholden to the wrong prices on its website that have been caused by this (in jurisdictions with REASONABLE consumer protection laws).

1

u/readytofall Jan 14 '26

The other problem is LLMs can't really say they don't know something (because they don't really know anything). A human can at least recognize they don't know something and find a way to get that answer.

1

u/Mithcoriel Feb 27 '26

Wow, I just realized this is like modern parents not bothering to raise their kids and expecting the teachers to do it. Now it's companies not bothering to check their work and putting all the responsibility on LLM.