In Zhejiang province, a grieving son's search for an auspicious burial date led him from a feng shui master to an AI chatbot — and ultimately to a courthouse. The chatbot offered contradictory guidance on a matter of deep cultural and familial consequence, and when misfortune followed, the question of who bears responsibility for algorithmic advice entered the legal record. The case sits at the intersection of ancient belief and emerging technology, asking what obligations a machine's makers hold when their creation speaks into the most human of moments.
Chinese man sues AI firm over burial date advice linked to family misfortune
A family member suffered serious injuries in a traffic accident, which relatives attributed to the burial date disrupting the family's feng shui.
The chatbot recommended April 19, then said April 19 wasn't auspicious.
Mark
So Shi consulted a feng shui master first, got a date, then second-guessed himself and asked the chatbot. Why not just stick with the master's advice?
Mimi
Because local custom said even-numbered days after death were unlucky, and April 20 was the fourth day. He was caught between two traditions—the master's recommendation and the community's superstition. The chatbot seemed like a tiebreaker.
Luke
But did the chatbot actually know about local customs? Or was it just pattern-matching from its training data?
Mimi
That's exactly what Shi's lawsuit hinges on. The chatbot gave him April 19, then contradicted itself by saying April 19 wasn't auspicious. He was already committed by then.
Mark
And then a relative had a traffic accident. Do we know when that happened relative to the funeral?
Luke
The source doesn't say. It just says "shortly after." That's important—we don't know if it was days later or weeks. The family attributed it to the burial date, but that's interpretation, not causation.
Mimi
Right, but that attribution is what drove Shi to sue. He felt the contradictory advice had caused family strain and possibly attracted bad luck, depending on your worldview.
Mark
What's the company's actual defense?
Luke
Their terms say AI content is for reference only, not professional advice. Users accept that by using the software. But Shi argues the disclaimer is unfair, the warnings are inadequate, and they don't review their sources properly.
Mimi
The irony is he used the same chatbot to draft his lawsuit. So he's relying on the tool even as he's suing it.
Mark
Has the court ruled yet?
Luke
No. The case is ongoing. We don't know what the court thinks about whether an AI company owes a duty of care when someone acts on its recommendations for something as culturally significant as a funeral.
The Pulse
- A man already navigating grief and family pressure turned to an AI for certainty, only to receive guidance that contradicted itself within the same conversation.
- Having publicly committed to a funeral date based on the chatbot's recommendation, he could not reverse course without causing family embarrassment — so he proceeded despite the confusion.
- When a relative was seriously injured in a traffic accident shortly after the burial, family members attributed the misfortune to the disrupted feng shui, transforming private grief into collective blame.
- Shi filed suit demanding an apology and compensation, arguing the company's disclaimer unfairly absolves it of all responsibility while providing users no meaningful warning of the AI's limitations.
- The case remains unresolved, but it has already surfaced a pointed irony: Shi used the same AI tool to draft his legal documents — a detail that sharpened public debate about where human judgment ends and algorithmic trust begins.
In Zhejiang province, a grieving son's search for an auspicious burial date led him from a feng shui master to an AI chatbot — and ultimately to a courthouse. The chatbot offered contradictory guidance on a matter of deep cultural and familial consequence, and when misfortune followed, the question of who bears responsibility for algorithmic advice entered the legal record. The case sits at the intersection of ancient belief and emerging technology, asking what obligations a machine's makers hold when their creation speaks into the most human of moments.
When Shi's mother died suddenly in April, the responsibility of selecting an auspicious burial date fell to him as the youngest of five siblings. He first consulted a feng shui master, who proposed April 20 — but local custom held that even-numbered days after a death carried bad luck. Seeking reassurance, Shi turned to an AI chatbot, which recommended April 19 and advised that paper horses and paper money be burned before the funeral procession to provide for the deceased in the afterlife.
Before long, the chatbot's guidance unraveled. A separate response from the same system stated that April 19 was not, in fact, an auspicious date. By then, Shi had already notified relatives and committed to the arrangements publicly. Reversing course would have caused disruption and embarrassment, so he proceeded.
Shortly after the funeral, a family member was seriously injured in a traffic accident. Some relatives drew a direct connection to the burial date, believing it had disturbed the family's feng shui. For Shi — who had relied on the chatbot for everything from work contracts to administrative tasks — the contradictory advice now felt like a betrayal of trust in a moment that carried irreversible cultural weight.
He sued Beijing Chuntian Zhiyun Technology, demanding an apology and compensation. The company pointed to its terms of service, which stated that AI-generated content was for reference only and carried no professional authority. Shi argued that this disclaimer unfairly placed all responsibility on users while providing inadequate warnings and insufficient review of the AI's sources. The case drew public attention — not least because Shi used the same AI to help draft his legal filings — and left open a question that courts and societies are only beginning to confront: when an algorithm speaks into a moment of human vulnerability, who is accountable for what it says?
In Zhejiang province, a man named Shi faced a decision that would entangle him in a lawsuit against an artificial intelligence company. His mother had died suddenly in April, and as the youngest of five siblings, the responsibility fell to him to select an auspicious date for her burial—a choice guided by traditions rooted in Chinese almanacs and beliefs about celestial influence that many families still consult for major life events.
Shi first consulted a feng shui master, who suggested April 20. But local custom held that even-numbered days after a death carried bad luck, and this concern gnawed at him. He turned to an AI chatbot for reassurance, seeking confirmation or an alternative. The chatbot recommended April 19 instead, and offered additional guidance: burn paper horses and paper money before the funeral procession, a ritual meant to provide the deceased with necessities for the afterlife. Shi accepted this advice and began notifying relatives of the new arrangements.
Then the contradictions emerged. The same chatbot that had recommended April 19 also stated, in another response, that April 19 was not actually an auspicious date. It suggested a burial time of 7am to 9am, but the conflicting information about the date itself created uncertainty. By then, Shi had already committed to the date publicly; changing course would have disrupted family plans and caused embarrassment. He proceeded with April 19.
Shortly after the funeral, one of Shi's relatives was seriously injured in a traffic accident. Some family members connected the two events, believing the burial date had disrupted the family's feng shui and drawn misfortune. The accident crystallized Shi's frustration. He had relied on the chatbot for many tasks—organizing work contracts, managing administrative details—and had trusted it with a decision that carried deep cultural weight. The contradictory guidance, he came to believe, had contributed to family discord and possibly worse.
Shi filed a lawsuit against Beijing Chuntian Zhiyun Technology, the company behind the chatbot, demanding an apology and compensation. Notably, he used the same AI tool to help draft his legal documents and map out litigation strategy—a detail that did not escape public notice. The company's terms of service stated that AI-generated content was for reference only and did not constitute professional advice, and that users accepted these terms by using the software. Shi countered that the agreement unfairly shifted all responsibility to users, provided insufficient warnings about the chatbot's limitations, and failed to adequately review the sources the AI drew from.
The case proceeded to local court and remained unresolved at the time of reporting. The company maintained that no online infringement had occurred. Online commentators offered competing views: some argued that users bore responsibility for evaluating AI responses critically, while others noted the irony of using AI to sue an AI company—a trend that, if it continued, might eventually lead people to hire AI lawyers to argue their cases in court. The dispute raised a fundamental question about where liability lies when an AI system provides guidance that a user acts upon, particularly in contexts where cultural beliefs and family decisions intersect with algorithmic recommendations.
Notable Quotes
The irony is that this man is using AI to sue the AI company. If this trend continues, people may eventually turn to AI lawyers for legal disputes as well.— Online observer
AI is only a tool. It is unfortunate for those who cannot evaluate its answers independently.— Online observer
Want the full story?
Read the original at The Star ↗
Business