QANTAS Cyber Incident

[odysseus]

How gullible do they think we are to say they formatted it but didn't draft it with AI?

If they can draft the letter then the punctuation is not an issue. AI had more involvement in that letter than just formatting.

 

[Seat0B]

Just this April I received $570 from a class action against ANZ Credit Cards... it must have taken many years as I have no recollection (nothing in email either) of ever joining a class action... once I actually got the money I instantly regretted not joining the Optus one... if the lawyers took 40% before my cut then wow they must have made out like bandits. The lesson? Don't ever change your email address

Not even if it’s been hacked!

 

[kookaburra75]

How odd. I checked a ChatGPT conversation I had which included a bulleted list and it produces standard bullet points, not generated images of bullets. Even copying and pasting into Word brings it across as a standard list, not with custom bullet points.

That's my experience too. I found the article a bit odd. I suspect it might be how the formatting as handled by their bulk email system, rather than using MS Word

 

[Daver6]

I don't see any issue with AI being used for this. Done properly, it's not just asking AI to write an apology. There would be some proper prompting and several iterations plus potentially some manual editing done too.

 

[SeaWolf]

I don't see any issue with AI being used for this. Done properly, it's not just asking AI to write an apology.

And the AI will definitely be more compassionate and empathetic than QF staff.

 

[TheInsider]

It's like these that are reporting the AI thing don't use AI

 

[SeatBackForward]

I suspect it might be how the formatting as handled by their bulk email system, rather than using MS Word

Apparently it was meta data associated with the dot point image that identified it as being generated by ChatGPT - Why someone was looking at this is equally mind boggling, but yes it may well be that those style of dot points somehow became part of a template used in their bulk email system.

But having said that, they've admitted using ChatGPT also.

 

[Seat0B]

My last class action netted me nearly 5 figures from VW Dieselgate. .

Yes we also did well on that one, but not that well!

 

[kookaburra75]

Apparently it was meta data associated with the dot point image that identified it as being generated by ChatGPT - Why someone was looking at this is equally mind boggling, but yes it may well be that those style of dot points somehow became part of a template used in their bulk email system.
But having said that, they've admitted using ChatGPT also.

I saw that report, which didn't really tell us much - but I digress (but isn't that what AFF is about? )

It's like these that are reporting the AI thing don't use AI

So true. But for those who get really excited about that sort of thing, there is this advice

I found 5 AI content detectors that can correctly identify AI text 100% of the time

I've been testing AI content detectors for two years now. They're getting more and more reliable. These are the ones you can count on.

www.zdnet.com

 

[RooFlyer]

I don't see any issue with AI being used for this. Done properly, it's not just asking AI to write an apology. There would be some proper prompting and several iterations plus potentially some manual editing done too.

Fair enough, but if you are writing a sincere apology, surely you have someone sit down and write what they, or the company feel. Have some professional writer polish it by all means - but asking a machine to do it for you?

To me, its sort of like saying, in your car "Hey Siri (or Google etc). Send a text of condolence to my friend X including my sympathies for their recent loss". You could do it, but would you?

It's like these that are reporting the AI thing don't use AI

They aren't apologising to millions for their cough-up.

 

[sudoer]

They aren't apologising to millions for their cough-up.

Yes, context matters tremendously here...

Edit: I'll add that I understand both viewpoints. I respect the viewpoint of those who don't care about the use of AI - fair enough. But I also absolutely understand the view of those who put off by AI having any hand in the drafting of a 'sincere apology', and think it can detract from the perceived sincerity of the message. Even if only 10% of recipients feel that way, that's 570,000 reasons not to use AI.

 

[DejaBrew]

Yes, context matters tremendously here...

Edit: I'll add that I understand both viewpoints. I respect the viewpoint of those who don't care about the use of AI - fair enough. But I also absolutely understand the view of those who put off by AI having any hand in the drafting of a 'sincere apology', and think it can detract from the perceived sincerity of the message. Even if only 10% of recipients feel that way, that's 570,000 reasons not to use AI.

I don't disagree with you, but at the same time, I think that Qantas was on a hiding to nothing regardless of their approach. Give AI some hand in creating the comms, and it's insincere. VH pens the entire thing herself, and people would find a million and one other reasons to criticise. You only need to look at the response from customers to the emails when they believed it was penned by VH/Qantas staff without any ChatGPT involvement.

I'm not saying that I would have used AI if I were in Qantas' position, but I can certainly understand why they might have leveraged it to help refine the finished product. And realistically, if it wasn't for the fact that someone clearly had way too much time on their hands, most of us would have been none the wiser.

 

[Daver6]

Fair enough, but if you are writing a sincere apology, surely you have someone sit down and write what they, or the company feel. Have some professional writer polish it by all means - but asking a machine to do it for you?

Do we really believe that QF are sincerely apologising or just covering their behinds to minimise reduction in shareholder value? Secondly, is palming it off to a professional writer but claiming it comes from the CEO any different?

Yes, context matters tremendously here...

Edit: I'll add that I understand both viewpoints. I respect the viewpoint of those who don't care about the use of AI - fair enough. But I also absolutely understand the view of those who put off by AI having any hand in the drafting of a 'sincere apology', and think it can detract from the perceived sincerity of the message. Even if only 10% of recipients feel that way, that's 570,000 reasons not to use AI.

Whatever QF do at the moment they're going to annoy people. They're in a no win situation, of their own making.

 

[I love to travel]

I don't disagree with you, but at the same time, I think that Qantas was on a hiding to nothing regardless of their approach. Give AI some hand in creating the comms, and it's insincere. VH pens the entire thing herself, and people would find a million and one other reasons to criticise. You only need to look at the response from customers to the emails when they believed it was penned by VH/Qantas staff without any ChatGPT involvement.

I'm not saying that I would have used AI if I were in Qantas' position, but I can certainly understand why they might have leveraged it to help refine the finished product. And realistically, if it wasn't for the fact that someone clearly had way too much time on their hands, most of us would have been none the wiser.

I understand your point. I just find it bemusing that someone on millions of dollars a year can't/won't write a simple sorry email. Sure lawyers and comms people can polish it but I think the Board should have an expectation that their CEO can write an email when things go wrong.

 

[YoungModern]

I am calling Qantas to request if I can change my QFF number since it has been disclosed on this cyber incident along with plenty of personal information. Looks like those people they hired to answer phone calls on the dedicated Cyber Security line have no idea about it.

Is there anywhere else I can request this in writting? Unfortunatley the overseas call centre is unable to help answer my question.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Board should have an expectation that their CEO can write an email when things go wrong

You have a lot of faith in the competency of those on the board to be able to do such things themselves!

My (admittedly) anecdotal evidence is that board membership is mostly based on revolving around other boards, and being well connected with other board members. I'm not sure when knowledge or skills in the thing the company does were ever important.

 

[DejaBrew]

I understand your point. I just find it bemusing that someone on millions of dollars a year can't/won't write a simple sorry email. Sure lawyers and comms people can polish it but I think the Board should have an expectation that their CEO can write an email when things go wrong.

Playing devil's advocate here, but how do you know that she didn't write it (or at least the initial draft of it)? The only way I think any of us would have believed this was a truly personal and sincere "mea culpa" would have been if VH was to have penned and mailed out individually handwritten letters to each and every one of those 5.7M impacted customers.

 

[AuSammy]

 

[Aussie_flyer]

72 pages in and now we are micro analysing the use or non use of AI in an email... I lost all my data here too but really, who gives a toss about the email? It doesn't change a thing

 

[docjames]

72 pages in and now we are micro analysing the use or non use of AI in an email... I lost all my data here too but really, who gives a toss about the email? It doesn't change a thing

Agree people are arguing around the edges, but perhaps that's a little reflective of the "death by a thousand cuts" over the last 10-15 years of QF management approach to their customers, as well as frustration that beyond acknowledging it happened, there appears to be little "goodwill" shown by QF towards those affected (eg. provision of credit monitoring, proactive compensation, etc).