Slashdot Mirror
Robot Lawyers Solve Problems
Ben22 writes "The Register is reporting that soon new 'Robot Agents' will handle all of our online disputes. The new system is called e-Dispute and could eventually be used on services such as eBay or even all online stores. Perhaps it will help usher in an age of simplified, safe online shopping. Someday, Congress and the Senate might even use programs such as this to resolve conflicting bills. The possibilities are endless."
In recent future, robot sues you!
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
I submitted my legal problem and it responded: Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto Mata ahoo Hima de Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto Now everyone can see - secret secret - I've got a secret My true identity - I'm Kilroy Kilroy Kilroy Kilroy !
Sounds horrible. First we have to go through 500 options over a telephone menu to reach the right person, now there is no more people. And as horrible as ebay/paypal's customer service is anyway... this will remove even more personal contact. Ugh.
--
United Bimmer - BMW Enthusiast Community
...perhaps it will just cause a new genre of video gamers that are more adept at manipulating the input it bases its decisions on?
Yes, lovely. Lets apply it to our legal system.
..10 robot lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A pretty good start.
This is a typical Slashdot boilerplate story. There will be exactly:
- 28 comments regarding the problems with automated systems to determine human problems
- 21 comments regarding the fact that current customer service is just as bad as robots
- 14 comments regarding robots in other areas being inefficient and as such will be useless in this field
- 4 comments regarding the new robot overlords
- 3 comments regarding Soviet Russia where you solve robot problems
- 2 comments regarding South Korea where old people solve robot problems
- 1 comment summarizing this entire story
What a poor title for the article. For those who can't be bothered to read the article, we aren't going to see robots chasing ambulances or wearing pinstripe armani suits any time soon.
FTA:
"Robot agents digest all the information and make proposals to the parties. Once the arbitrator is agreed upon, the robot agent finds a suitable meeting date for everybody," said Jacques Gouimenou, managing director of Tiga Technologies, the company behind e-Dispute, speaking with ElectricNews.Net. "Our system reduces delays and costs. It is also very secure."
So what we are really talking about is something that:
1. Stores documentation
2. allows the two parties to select an anbitrator
3. Selects a date
What does this have to do lawyers? This is a scheduling tool.
meh
At least we can be reasonably sure that the robotic legislator actually read the thing first.
I think this is probably a good idea.
Firstly, have you every tried sorting through legal documents? This is definitely an area we could use a little automation. Secondly, have you ever tried dealing with lawyers? Even when they work for you this is a frustraiting process and could use a little automation :)
Hell yes, bring on the robots! Actually what would be even better would just be a law.google.com interface, or have they already got something like that and I just dont know about it?
"hi, i'm calling to cancel my aol subscription"
"i'm afraid i can't do that dave"
- Would we pass various scenarios through the system, prior to initiating litigation, to assess whether the lawsuit makes financial sense and to choose the most promising approach?
- It would appear that, if the proposed settlement to be chosen by the litigation system was completely predictable, this would be a severe weakness. It would make "gaming the system" even easier than today. Thus, as with the best poker robots, some level of randomisation would appear necessary to keep the "players" honest. On the other hand, many caught up in the legal system are under the illusion that outcomes should conform to something called "justice". While these participants may be delusional, their fantasies need to be catered to, and any form of randomisation in the results will be regarded as "unjust".
- I find the possibility of duelling litigation robots a fascinating prospect. I can imagine a whole new specialty of "litigation robot optimization" where engineers, knowledgable about the internal operation of competing robots, find creative ways to enhance the results of their own robot.
I certainly have no fear that such developments will lead to a worse legal system. The current system (in almost all countries, though there are a few honourable exceptions) is so hopelessly flawed that changes, while they may not help, will not cause any major new problems. Litigation in the US, and many other countries, is just a way to generate money for the legal profession. Adding a new legal specialty to get some of the spoils seems fine, especially as this one sounds like fun.The charming little SciFi novel, Monument by Lloyd Biggle, Jr., has a few small but important scenes in which legal disputes are argued by human lawyers, but decided by a robot judge. A pleasant read, especially for tree-hugging sci-fi nerds.
So basically, as far as I can tell, this is basically a chat room with a human organizer scheduling and moderating things - except that it also has lots of features (videoconferencing, etc) to make communication as convenient as possible, and it's also optimized for "chatting" about legal disputes.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if it becomes very widely used, since for two parties across the globe it's pretty difficult to arrange a long series of meetings in person, but it's being misrepresented - no "robot lawyers" are solving anything, it's just a computer interface to a human lawyer, for convenience.
Back in 2002-2003 there was an online service in the UK called court services. Basically one could launch a claim online. This isn't a new concept. I am surpised the Register which is a UK site missed that one.
Someday, Congress and the Senate might even use programs such as this to resolve conflicting bills.
I almost fought the urge to be cynical, but....
Don't count on them using such a program, then. If Congress ever actually resolved anything, they'd have to close up shop for the duration, go home, and find a real job.
[/cynicism]
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
I'd like to introduce our newest Execubot Delta, programmed to cancel TV shows based on spurious legal threats;
Execubot Delta: Futurama should be cancelled because the character name "Fry" makes us vulnerable to McDonalds.
... and then they built the supercollider.
the soon-to-be-developed Abrambott can automatically calculate how much to "donate" to contrarian lawmakers to buy off secure their votes, using proprietary "Duke Cunningham" algorithms!
Democracy in action!
They're called "public defenders."
Great news. You're going to plead guilty. (Urp!) Have I got a plea bargain for you! (Zzip!) If you don't plead guilty, the deal is never gonna get better. (Zzip, urp!) You know if you don't plead guilty you could go away for 0xFF years....
Do you really want to have personal interactions with lawyers? :)
So I'm wondering if they have a patent on it. If they have a patent on it, then they could write an arsenal of lawsuit bots and nobody could defend themselves because they'd have to violate the patent. They could rule the world! MUAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Tiga's new thing may be vaporware. Their website is suspicious. The graphics all look like generic clip art. The e-Dispute application system diagram appears to be a generic drawing of a Citrix Metaframe system with a bit of markup. An old Metaframe system, too. Note the terminals marked "OS/2 PCs" and "Legacy DOS PCs", and the data links marked "ISDN" and "Dial-Up". In fact, here's the image it was apparently copied from. Note that Tiga seems to have removed the Citrix name and the "tm" after Metaframe, along with other editing.
This could be quite useful. Imagine for instance:
---
Robot lawyer: Hello. I am Robot lawyer. How can I help you?
RIAA: My grandmother has been downloading music.
Robot lawyer: Why do you say your grandmother has been downloading music?
RIAA: Our network of spys informed us
Robot lawyer: Please go on.
RIAA: We need to sue her
Robot lawyer: Why do you want to sue her
RIAA: To recoup our losses caused by the theft of our music
Robot lawyer: Please go on.
RIAA: We also need to send a lesson to all our customers that it is wrong to listen to our music
Robot lawyer: Can you elaborate on that?
RIAA: Well you see we feel threatened by any technology which we are not familiar with, so we need to sue her
Robot lawyer: Oh, I see you feel threatened by any technology which you are not familiar with so you need to sue her.
RIAA: Pretty much.
Robot lawyer: Please go on.
RIAA: So, are you going to send her a subpeona?
Robot lawyer: Would you prefer if I was not going to send her a subpeona?
RIAA: We thought that was your job!
Robot lawyer: Can you elaborate on that?
RIAA: God damn. You're supposed to be getting me money!
Robot lawyer: How long have you been supposed to be getting your money?
RIAA: No, no, you, YOU are supposed to be handling this dispute.
Robot lawyer: You are being a bit negative.
RIAA: Do you think we'd get more money if we were more positive?
Robot lawyer: Do you wish that you were more positive?
---
Maybe, just maybe, they'd eventually give up!
For example, the large majority of arbited disputes in the norwegian "Forliksråd" runs something like this:
- One side in some relation refuses to deal with something he/she/it should. Could be a customer that ignores paying his bill, a business that doesn't respond to requests to warranty-repair a defective computer (I had this happen to me), whatever. You try for a while, but after your second formal letter of complaint is ignored you realize it's time to either give up, or get the law behind you.
- You deliver a complaint to the Forliksråd with a written account of how you see the case. (you don't need to document anything, only explain.)
- Complaint is delivered to other part, along with information that an answer is to be delivered within 14 days, or the "forliksråd" will be forced to conclude that you agree with the accusations.
- No response comes.
- Forliksråd decides you are rigth in your claims and issue a ruling to this effect.
- Other part is informed of the ruling, and the fact that it becomes legally bindable if it is not appealed within a month.
- Other part ignores this too. One month passes.
At this point you've got a legal judgement, and can use any of the means available for getting your money. In the case of a consumer having a dispute with a business the simplest way of getting the money is simply to go demand the business be bankrupted, as it has legal, undisputed, but still unpaid bills. I did this.It's interesting how a company that's been ignoring your demands to fix their shit for a year is suddenly capable of bringing a courier to your house with full payment, within *the*hour* of them, their bank, their investors, and the entire board of Trustees learning that they are, legally, bankrupt this time next week unless they can show proof that they've paid the bill.
Arbitration with no legal force is, however, as you say, pointless unless both sides actually want to reach an agreement.
Future headline probability: 20%
ironicalness: 99.44%.
My script don't crash! She crashes, you crashed her!
As others have pointed out, the article makes it sound more like a sched tool. But even if it really was a robot lawyer or robot arbiter:
You are talking about a system set up, owned, and run, by the company you are disputing with. Think about that. Your HMO denies your medical treatment and you call to dispute that and get care you really need. You get to use a system built to your HMO's specs to try and dispute your HMO's decision. It's just as bad as contract clauses that require you to use a specified arbiter who is already selected a paid off by the company before you start.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
How many people will continue to shuffle responsibility by whineing after litigation that "the computer had it in for me since the beginning." People are goign to hate this. They will no longer be able to blame the "bigoted" judge or artbitur. The next thing you know they will claim the code was written with bias towards them.
You cannot solve problems between people by removing the human element. You need to teach people to get along and take responsibility.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Welcome to Domestic Arbitration Court #375. All property lists should be pasted to #flood. Do NOT paste in this channel!
Litigator42: This is a fact finding session for the divorce hearing between John Citizen and his wife Kate Citizen
H0rn3yGuy69:It's not my fault, she's frigid.
CalikoePrincess: You spent all our money on porn!
H0rn3yGuy69:Litigator42: a/s/l?
CalikoePrincess: He's a lying cheating f*ckwad!
H0rn3yGuy69: Litigator42: What are you wearing?
Litigator42 has left the room(Quit "I want to be re-assigned to drug court")
My wife is like Unix. Lots of commands. Lots of arguments.