• Sunflier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Nope! That violates the deeply rooted basis of law for the sale of goods. Such sales are subject to individual states’ laws, but most follow Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. There is inherently no meeting of the minds (the very foundation on all contract law dating back before America was even discovered by Europeans) if AI is engaging in anything commercial in nature, much more so if they’re mistakes.

    You cannot pull a bait and switch on non-conforming/mistaken goods without letting the other party choose to accept or reject the goods. This is more so if that choice is made before the mistake is discovered and the price changed. Here, the supplier has engaged in the risk of loss by utilizing an untested replacement for workers.

    Also, how is the recieving party supposed to know they’re not tendering an alternative replacement of non-conforming goods?

    • Bakkoda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 days ago

      Laws you say? I guess we’ll see you in court. Unless you can’t afford that. Then you can get fucked.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yep. Class action lawsuit. Get fucked out of hundreds or thousands of dollars; receive $12 and a coupon book in compensation.

    • Wilco@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      They are likely bribing … erm … I mean “lobbying” politicians right now to get a legal loophole around this.

    • matlag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      There were laws about IPs and copyright, the kind that would prevent any corp from parsing basically the whole internet and use it without any restriction or consideration for the content creators. Do you remember what happened to those?