Chatbot that Overturned 160,000 Parking Fines Now Helping Refugees Claim Asylum (theguardian.com)

Elena Cresci, writing for The Guardian: The creator of a chatbot which overturned more than 160,000 parking fines and helped vulnerable people apply for emergency housing is now turning the bot to helping refugees claim asylum. The original DoNotPay, created by Stanford student Joshua Browder, describes itself as "the world's first robot lawyer", giving free legal aid to users through a simple-to-use chat interface. The chatbot, using Facebook Messenger, can now help refugees fill in an immigration application in the US and Canada. For those in the UK, it helps them apply for asylum support. The London-born developer worked with lawyers in each country, as well as speaking to asylum seekers whose applications have been successful. Browder says this new functionality for his robot lawyer is "long overdue". He told the Guardian: "I've been trying to launch this for about six months -- I initially wanted to do it in the summer. But I wanted to make sure I got it right because it's such a complicated issue. I kept showing it to lawyers throughout the process and I'd go back and tweak it.

Comments

"Are you in danger"

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

From what I understand of the current asylum interview process, the key question is "is your life in danger" followed by variations on "prove it." (Sometimes the proof is as simple as pointing to death threats on Facebook.) Does anyone know if coaching this process is what this bot is doing?

Re:"Are you in danger"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like time to arrest another Foreign agent working against america's interests.

Re:"Are you in danger"

[ShanghaiBill]

Asylum applicants without attorneys are four times as likely to be rejected, so knowing the process is important. People that represent themselves tend to talk about how much they like and appreciate America/Canada/UK, that they are grateful for the opportunities, and how they are working hard to contribute. In an asylum hearing, that is pretty much the opposite of what you should say.

Re:"Are you in danger"

[AmiMoJo]

Indeed, the focus has to be on proving that you are at risk where you came from. So proving you were a resident of Alepo, getting medical reports on scars from torture/beatings, that kind of thing.

It's actually quite similar to the parking fine challenge process. Most of what you think is important isn't, it's really about making very specific points and demonstrating specific things that are well established.

Re:"Are you in danger"

[Shoten]

From what I understand of the current asylum interview process, the key question is "is your life in danger" followed by variations on "prove it." (Sometimes the proof is as simple as pointing to death threats on Facebook.) Does anyone know if coaching this process is what this bot is doing?

Yes...but using that reductive approach, you can say that this is how almost any compliance/vetting process works.

PCI DSS: "Do you handle payment card information securely," followed by variations on "prove it." Yet, accomplishing this is expensive and challenging.

Tax audit: "Have you paid what you owe for taxes," followed by variations on "prove it." The visceral reaction of anyone who has been through a tax audit makes my point here.

Security clearance interview: "Can we trust you with state secrets," followed by variation on "prove it." This gets even more interesting if you get a polygraph exam...which is essentially nothing more than a twisted, mind-fucky variation of the same.

The trick is in the "prove it" part...or more specifically, the overlap between what actual means are feasible for providing proof combined with what the questioning entity defines as acceptable proof. In different situations, this overlap may be subject to negotiation as well (or not), and that is its own area of expertise unto itself in some cases. Almost all of these processes also involve setting legal precedents during their early days as well.

In short: sure, you can use a verbal metaphor to represent the process in an oversimplified manner. But that doesn't make the actual process...as required by anyone who engages with it...simple or easy.

Re:"Are you in danger"

[Opportunist]

That should be doable. Claim you're gay and that you're from some country where a religious nutjob is making the laws and your life is in danger.

Re:"Are you in danger"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you can never be safe when immigrants contribute?
https://immigrationupdate.wordpress.com/famous-american-immigrants/

Re:"Are you in danger"

[Anonymous Coward]

I practiced Asylum law in lawschool. It is never simple. The judges are moody and overworked, the results are sometimes arbitrary. There are lots of rules (some unwritten), and lots of strategies. Do you want asylum, or maybe the easier-to-get CAT withholding-removal? Perhaps try for a VAWA? U visa? T visa? It is very hard for an outsider to pick the right strategy. ICE, CBP and for-profit detention facilities add another element of unpredictability. Should you request asylum at the border (probably not), or should you sneak in illegally(maybe)? Should you come on a tourist visa and request asylum? Lots of these questions depend on what country you are fleeing and why. It is complex, complex, complex.

Re: "Are you in danger"

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like this company does something like this?
Https://omnidragondevelopment.com
  How hard is it to make these?

Re:"Are you in danger"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not in our interest to let any of those bastards in.

The best solution would be nuke 'em, then put out the fires with sarin nerve gas.

Kill 'em all, and let Allah sort it out.

Re: "Are you in danger"

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fsck die you manage to sneak past birth control? You should've been a jizz stain on a rancid blanket, at most...

Re:"Are you in danger"

[operagost]

People that represent themselves tend to talk about how much they like and appreciate America/Canada/UK, that they are grateful for the opportunities, and how they are working hard to contribute. In an asylum hearing, that is pretty much the opposite of what you should say.

So they should say they hate America, they are entitled to wealth, and they don't feel like working for it?

That does sound like the attitude of the average Democratic voter.

Re:"Are you in danger"

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post sounds like the smug shittbaggery of the average trump voter.

Re:"Are you in danger"

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like the smug hatefulness of the below average Liberal.

Re:"Are you in danger"

[Anonymous Coward]

And yours Sounds like the usual ranting lies of the dumb fuck Trump troll

Re:"Are you in danger"

[vlad30]

From the PDS of every financial investment firm

Past performance does not guarantee future performance,

It applies to immigration very well also in the past it could be said we were more picky about those invested in and those that really did escape year ago were smarter as they got out early just like the rich who sell their shares at the top of the market and could see everything going downhill

Re:"Are you in danger"

[vlad30]

year should have been years too early in the morning

Re:"Are you in danger"

[Mattcelt]

Process is oft times more important in legal situations than the facts... or the law. The single biggest reason to retain an attorney is to get someone who can navigate the process on your behalf.

Applying for asylum isn't only about proving that your life is in danger; it's about proving it the right way, in the right terms, in triplicate (except when only in duplicate), while the moon is waxing. Get one step wrong, and you may well lose your case, regardless of the facts, the law, or the truth.

After process, knowledge of case law, legal terminology, and knowledge of law are (in my limited experience) the other benefits of having a solicitor. The DoNotPay robot(?) provides, at least, knowledge of process and bits of the rest. And that can truly make the difference between winning and losing in court. I think it's an important and useful tool, and well-applied in this case.

Re:"Are you in danger"

[skam240]

You're right we hate America because we espouse political views contrary to your own! Forget freedom of thought, if you disagree with conservatives then you hate America!

Re:"Are you in danger"

[Anonymous Coward]

They should say that leaving everything behind and coming to America was their choice of last resort, taken on pain of horrible tortures or death, and that they'd rather be anywhere else if only they could be safe there.

Then the judge might believe that they need asylum.

Re:"Are you in danger"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, just a #nevertrumper utterly dismayed at the parasitic colonization of my party by people like oepragost

Re:"Are you in danger"

[silentcoder]

Erm no. That would be an ideal - but it really is a lot more complicated than that - how complicated varies by country. Asylum laws vary by country.

An asylum-seeker is never an illegal immigrant (contrary to how president Trump described the Australia deal) - it's legal under international law (As well as US and Australian domestic law btw) to show up at a border without a VISA or passport if you are a refugee. Of course, if your request for asylum is denied and you THEN go in you could BECOME an illegal immigrant but that would be a later issue.

Now whether you really are a refugee varies, and there is generally a judgement factor involved. Sometimes decisions are ridiculous. A few years ago Canada granted asylum to a Cape Townian on the premise that crime in South Africa was becoming a genocidal targetting of whites. Which is flagrantly untrue - in fact whites are the LEAST likely to be targetted by criminals. 8% of the population but far under 1% of crime victims. South Africa raised a huge diplomatic fuss over it, and Canadian higher-ups reversed the decision later (I also believe the particular moron who approved it was fired later).
But they also, and much more frequently, deny legitimate applications with equally stupid judgement calls - over things like filling a form in wrong. What the bot does is collect the information the form actually wants in plain English and then generate a correctly filed application and mail it in for you. That's it.
It makes sure your form is accurate and correctly filled in so you don't get denied by some pencil-pushing burocrat because you didn't cross a t or dot an i. After that - it's up to the usual processes to evaluate the request and make a decision. All the bot does is make sure your form is correct.

Generally helping people navigate the complexity of large burocracies more efficiently is a good thing.

Re:"Are you in danger"

[Coren22]

That sounds like the reasoning being used by the DNC during the election to accuse Trump of being a racist sexist bigot.

Re:"Are you in danger"

[skam240]

Of course there's plenty of evidence to support a claim about Trump like that as opposed to stuff like "Gun control!? You hate America!", "Social programs to help the poor!? You hate America!" "(Insert non conservative view)!? You hate America!" There are elements of the Right that love playing the "You hate America" card when people express contrary political views to their own as if we're North Korea and not a free nation.

Dont get me wrong, there are jerks on the Left that want to be mind police too. I was just calling out the above poster on their shit.

Re:"Are you in danger"

[operagost]

I'm not a conservative, idiot.

Overturned 160,000 parking fines?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence please? And not "it's been used 160,000 times".

Also if you think the asylum process is as simple as appealing a parking fine, you're fucking high. This guy appears to have more hubris than experience, and it reminds me of the $1 laptop programmes where somehow people without shelter and electricity and maintenance shops were somehow going to benefit from Wikipedia to tell them how to re-build the civilisation that the same cultures that delivered their laptop had destroyed.

Re:Overturned 160,000 parking fines?

[Anubis IV]

Evidence please? And not "it's been used 160,000 times".

A simple search in /. for "chatbot parking" turned up this previous article, which indicated that it successfully challenged 160,000 out of 250,000 tickets. So, no, not "it's been used 160,000 times". This is a "it's won 160,000 times". And that was as of June of last year. This NPR piece from earlier this year indicates that its up to 200,000 successful cases now in just three cities, and that its overall success rate with parking tickets stands at around 60%.

Re:Overturned 160,000 parking fines?

[Shoten]

Evidence please? And not "it's been used 160,000 times".

Also if you think the asylum process is as simple as appealing a parking fine, you're fucking high. This guy appears to have more hubris than experience, and it reminds me of the $1 laptop programmes where somehow people without shelter and electricity and maintenance shops were somehow going to benefit from Wikipedia to tell them how to re-build the civilisation that the same cultures that delivered their laptop had destroyed.

While I agree that evidence of the claim would be useful, I also see no evidence of the implied accusation that his system has been unhelpful to anyone.

I can absolutely imagine how this kind of system would be useful to an asylum seeker. Some of the biggest challenges aren't about nuance of law or understanding of precedent. Imagine showing up in an industrialized country, not able to speak the language very well (or at all). You don't know what government agencies you're about to interact with, nor do you know what their roles and responsibilities are. You don't know what processes you're expected to follow, what they are called, what they do, or how they work. You don't know what you're going to be asked to do, produce as evidence, or answer as questions. The specifics of what you'll need to know vary based upon things like where you're from, what kind of danger you're worried about, and whether you are alone or with a family. The process is long and byzantine (despite what Trump thinks) and when you throw in the cultural and language differences in combination with simply just being scared about the future...yeah, wow.

Look at it from another perspective related to something that has to be about one one-hundredth as scary and intense. Say you're going to the DMV for the first time to take a driving test and get a license, and have never had any aspect of the process explained to you before. What would be easier...a sheet of paper explaining all the different things at the DMV and how they work, or a person that you could interactively ask questions of, so that you can find out what you, specifically, need to know and need to do?

Re: Overturned 160,000 parking fines?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideally both. Its called studying and then a parent. Hehe.

Re:Overturned 160,000 parking fines?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wanted to offer Internet Points for keeping one's composure when replying, and not scolding or demeaning the questioner. (Which we've all seen plenty of).
You sir, mam, bot(?) are today's coolest poster.

Re:Overturned 160,000 parking fines?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence please? And not "it's been used 160,000 times".

Also if you think the asylum process is as simple as appealing a parking fine, you're fucking high. This guy appears to have more hubris than experience, and it reminds me of the $1 laptop programmes where somehow people without shelter and electricity and maintenance shops were somehow going to benefit from Wikipedia to tell them how to re-build the civilisation that the same cultures that delivered their laptop had destroyed.

WE WUZ KANGZ!

Re:Overturned 160,000 parking fines?

[mjwx]

Evidence please? And not "it's been used 160,000 times".

A simple search in /. for "chatbot parking" turned up this previous article, which indicated that it successfully challenged 160,000 out of 250,000 tickets. So, no, not "it's been used 160,000 times". This is a "it's won 160,000 times". And that was as of June of last year. This NPR piece from earlier this year indicates that its up to 200,000 successful cases now in just three cities, and that its overall success rate with parking tickets stands at around 60%.

The question is, is 60% any better than any other methods. I'd say it's much lower than paying a lawyer at $400 an hour (I know a traffic lawyer who boasts a 90% sucess rate, thats where I got the $400 p/h figure from, I believe him because he doesn't take cases he's certain are going to lose). Here in the UK, the rule of thumb is, if it's issued by a local government, you need a bulletproof excuse to get out of it. If it's issued by a private corporation, just chuck it in the bin (so you don't get a fine for littering).

To issue fines, you need to either take it to court or have a remit from the government to do so. Pretty much the only organisations that I know of who have the power to do that without the local government doing the enforcing are universities (which have to have government issued charters to operate to begin with).

Will this increase or decrease correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Namely the correlation between the valid reasons for seeking asylum and the chances of acceptance. The application process is supposed to deliver more information about the applicant than "used a chatbot". If it makes the applicant more likely to relate correct and relevant information (and that _is_ a problem that may end up life-threatening), so much the better. If it ends up basically sabotaging the application process, it's to the detriment of actually deserving asylum seekers.

I think you mean

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean "helping turn immigrants into asylum seekers"

Re:I think you mean

[Opportunist]

I'm from Central Europe. I fail to see the difference.

Safety filter

[Anonymous Coward]

For the safety of those using the chatbot to apply for US immigration, might want to go ahead and reject those that look like or have names that sound Muslim, since we have bigots here that think Indians are Iranian and can't tell the difference between Sikhs and Muslim extremists. I would say get to know a group of people before you start hating them, but then that might make it too hard to actually hate them.

Re:Safety filter

[nukenerd]

.... we have bigots here that think Indians are Iranian and can't tell the difference between Sikhs and Muslim extremists. I would say get to know a group of people before you start hating them, but then that might make it too hard to actually hate them.

It usually makes it easier. Civil wars are between sides who know each other's ways very well - too well. The more I know people the less I like them in general, irrespective of race etc. I find that the majority of people are actually shits under a civilised veneer. In the UK people are now very familiar with all these different immigrant groups, thanks to SJWs' aim of "multi-culture" being rammed down our throats all the time. The more time goes on, the more that the original UK people are getting fed-up with the newcomers (and the overcrowding that they are causing), and the newcomer groups don't like each other either. I have a Chinese friend who hates black people with a vengence for example.

I think we are heading for a big crunch within the next generation or two, even civil war, which mis-guided idiots like this Browder douchbag are only fuelling.

Re:Safety filter

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck off faggot

A bot based on law is flawed

[Anonymous Coward]

A bot's expertise based on decades of legal interpretation of US laws, is flawed right now. Quite simple, does the "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965" still exist as a law or not? The answer right now is maybe. It depends if DHS staff follow Trump's latest order or not.

You can give out the advice all you like, but the man at the gate dealing with the application is either following US law as interpreted by the US courts, or US law, as written by Trump executive order. Either he's discriminating based on that list of nations or he's not. And your bot won't have a encapsulation for that.

Of course this wouldn't be an issue, if POTUS was a normal president, he'd simply go to Congress and get that act amended, instead of writing repeated executive orders as though he can amend it without Congress. But power is what you take, Congress doens't give it to you, you wait till they need something (like the repeal of Obamacare signed), and grab it.

Re:A bot based on law is flawed

[Anonymous Coward]

The bot isn't meant to win all the cases, or get admittance to every immigrant. It's less efficient than a common attorney!

But it's free to use, and it's certainly better than if you try to defend your case alone.

Yes, it's flawed - but it's far from useless.

Great use of resources

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

Let's see. He could have created programs aimed at helping get citizens of those countries access to national-level benefits plans. If he did that with the VA, he'd literally never have to buy another drink again whenever he visits the US because every veteran would be shoving alcohol in his face in gratitude.

But nope, gotta help them refugees. Even though many of them aren't actually refugees at all, but economic migrants.

Re:Great use of resources

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not expect the MSM to run with that story, they have to make it sound like those military jihadi's are children and women and need help. Btw, NONE are Christians, and NONE are white. surprise!!

Re:Great use of resources

[Anonymous Coward]

No worries - Trump will fix the VA.

Re:Great use of resources

[Anonymous Coward]

I love freedom. Don't you?

Re:Great use of resources

[halltk1983]

I imagine that he is adding features as quickly as he's able to do so, and attacking him for having different priorities than you is unlikely to get him to move faster on to your pet project. You're welcome to set up your own legal advise bot to help people, but to the person that wrote the bot that currently exists, removing victims of terrible violence at risk of losing their very lives is a high priority. Based on your username, I assume you bought into the idea that the recently elected officials would be trying to help people. I hope to God you're right, but every indication so far is that they're simply trying to enrich themselves and their friends. Please reach out to those you voted for and ask them for help, while others help those that the ones you voted for are trying to harm.

Re:Great use of resources

[jeff4747]

A chatbot can not get Congress to fund care for the large increase in veterans Congress decided to create.

Re:Great use of resources

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw a nice picture once, it pointed out all the stable countries (at least relatively stable) between the areas of conflict, and western europe (sweden, germany, uk, france in particular)

pretty obvious it's about economics and benefits. else turkey would be swimming in refugees.

Re:Great use of resources

[Opportunist]

The only problem is see is that this "fix" will probably be in the veterinary sense.

Re:Great use of resources

[Khashishi]

What's it to you who he helps? It's like you feel entitled to the fruits of his voluntary labor.

Re:Great use of resources

[Anonymous Coward]

Turkey has taken in 7 million refugees...I guess one could say they are swimming in refugees...

Re:Great use of resources

[Anonymous Coward]

You presume that these people are in fact victims of terrible violence in risk of losing their very lives instead of military aged mostly men trying to colonize nations and force them to adapt to their ways (and crying racism whenever somebody suggests that it might be a good idea if they behave and, you know, obey the laws of the nations generous enough to give them this salvation you speak of)

Of course, this is proof that technology can be used for good like overturning bogus parking tickets and for bad, such as things like this.

Re:Great use of resources

[silentcoder]

No, We don't "assume" that - we have facts and evidence that PROVE that.

You assume the opposite because you will believe anything if it gives you an excuse to try and keep your neighbourhood looking like you.

Other Uses

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's not good as a lawyer for a refugee. But if I were a refugee, I'd sure be using it. Asking it questions and copying the answer. There a quite a few idiot lawyers are out there who just care about collecting a pay check - Not defending you, or doing any research on your case. Use AI for questions you would ask a lawyer about your situation. Then ask the lawyer the same questions. If they don't line up with AI's answers go find another lawyer.

The gov should hire him

[bugs2squash]

Every government form should have chatbot assistance available. The purpose of the government form is to convey information accurately so that help can be delivered to the people that qualify and rule out assistance to people that should be denied - that is the government's intent after all.

If the chatbot helps imrorve the effectiveness of that process, and it seems there is evidence that it does as I have not heard that the 160,000 odd parking citations were overturned improperly, then all for the better.

Re:The gov should hire him

[Anonymous Coward]

Automation of government processes is critically needed in these days of rapid population changes and variety of special needs. Just today I read about how our well-fare applications are processed under tremendous stress, with the supervisors telling the workers that speed is more important than correctness. Funny how the article left out the bit about how the overpaid benefits are collected afterwards, with interests. Losing credit information (no renting in the private markets, no change of buying property in many years, no working in many positions and so on) because of the government mistake: priceless.

Re:The gov should hire him

[Anonymous Coward]

While this guy's actions may seem morally very fashionable, a government's job is not to provide every poor person on the planet with western standard of living through social benefit programs. We can have open borders if we also get rid of all taxes and other such forced wealth transfer mechanisms. Until then, this guy should be declared enemy of the state and those economic refugees can go back to whichever country they came from and start building it into a better place.

Re:The gov should hire him

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly but you will be downvoted in 3, 2, 1...
People here are idealistic socialists that think you can eat the cake twice

Re:The gov should hire him

[Nidi62]

All he is doing is assisting people in accessing programs that the US government has already decided to offer. If they don't want people to utilize those programs then they should cancel them. These are just immigration applications anyway. The government is free to reject those applications for any reasons it deems fit.

Re:The gov should hire him

[Nidi62]

All he is doing is assisting people in accessing programs that the US government has already decided to offer. If they don't want people to utilize those programs then they should cancel them. These are just immigration applications anyway. The government is free to reject those applications for any reasons it deems fit.

Socialist gov LOVE to give away money they rob from others...

Immigration is part of being a country. In fact this country was built on immigration, and American culture is like no other culture on the planet specifically because of immigration and how in most cases immigrants are fully assimilated within a generation or 2.

You act like this chatbot is handing out free money. It's not. Only if applicants are admitted for immigration to they have the opportunity to get assistance: for food stamps "Qualified immigrant children, refugees, people granted asylum or withholding of deportation/removal, Cuban/Haitian entrants, certain Amerasian immigrants, Iraqi and Afghan special immigrants, survivors of trafficking, qualified immigrant veterans, active duty military, and their spouses and children, lawful permanent residents with credit for 40 quarters of work history, certain Native Americans, lawfully residing Hmong and Laotian tribe members, and immigrants receiving disability-related assistance are eligible regardless of their date of entry into the U.S. Qualified immigrant seniors who were born before August 22, 1931, may be eligible if they were lawfully residing in the U.S. on August 22, 1996. Other qualified immigrant adults, however, must wait until they have been in qualified status for five years before they can secure critical nutrition assistance." In fact, unless the immigrants meet one of those classes above, they are restricted for 5 years from receiving aid from "Medicaid (except for emergency care), CHIP, TANF, SNAP, and SSI." And that's only for qualified immigrants. Others, including illegal immigrants, aren't elligible for any type of federal assistance.

Source is https://www.nilc.org/issues/ec...

Re:The gov should hire him

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously due to moderation.

I believe the value of a service like this isn't in whether at advances someone's ideals (although it may do that). The value to me is in everyone understanding the PROCESS, so that they system can best do the job it was designed to do. Why should there be secret arcane knowledge of how to interact with a process that most people don't interact with often, where the secret arcane knowledge leads those who know it to achieve better results than those who don't? In these examples, free access and use of these systems wasn't available - only those with the time/money to obtain the knowledge and/or pay someone who had the knowledge to work the system for them could benefit from these systems. Putting aside certain concerns (like whether personal fossil-fuel transportation is ultimately a societal "good" or not), these systems are more broadly distributed and used equally well by everyone because they have good user interfaces.

Fundamentally, the administrative and legal processes in the United States at all levels of government are ones where the frequent practitioners (lawyers, for example) can achieve better results than the non-practitioners who rarely interact with that process. This provides lawyers with a great living, but doesn't really work for the rest of us. I think that a goal of a government that really serves the people is to have processes that are easy to understand and follow, so that the actual rules being enforced by that process are applied fairly and equally to everyone.

What if cars had a complex user interface that meant just about everyone had to hire a chauffeur or do without personal motorized transportation? What was the benefit of the Internet to the general population when the "point and click" WWW didn't exist, and using it was an exercise in Telnet/FTP exploration of often poorly organized (but shared!) resources? What if using a television receiver was more like owning/operating a ham radio, requiring testing/certification before certain channels could be used?

Equalizing access to a process or user interface is important, because it removes an artificial barrier to the use of that process or interface that otherwise unfairly favors the frequent practitioner over the infrequent practitioner. If in this case (immigration/asylum) it has the effect of letting less-qualified people in that shouldn't get in, then the process should be adjusted to better adjudicate properly completed applications. Depending on a poor understanding of a process to act as an early filter of applicants is like deliberately adding in $$$/ability to pay as en evaluation criteria (but an implicit criteria, rather than an explicit criteria).

We should expect our government to have an easy to use interface, and if the government has proven unable to provide it (as is sometimes the case), then a third-party who steps in to assist should be cheered, not jeered, in my opinion. If the system can't stand to have an easy to use interface, we need to look at fixing the system.

As an example of this, look at Turbo Tax. Should we rally against Turbo Tax because they make it so easy to file income tax forms that otherwise folks would have to pay a tax accountant to fill out, or end up paying more than they owe?

Re:The gov should hire him

[Anonymous Coward]

France actually pays people money to go back. Amusingly the cost of that program are still a fraction of the forced deportation. Legal, administrative and other costs can push the forced deportation into almost 20000 EURs per person. Somehow I suspect that the deportation costs are not the same in all the EU countries at all, or in the US.

Re:The gov should hire him

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww, look another fat fuck 4chan Trump troll dribbling its shit all over the thread and answering itself.

I for one say Thank you for doing this

[Anonymous Coward]

Wishing I could code a chatbot myself, but thanks, for those unable to express their gratitude.

This is for my future parking violation, mind you.

A. coward

Re:The Muslim Threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod this up.

Sample

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am a refugee looking to go to the United States."

Reply: "The U.S. is already drowning in citizens with low skills. File elsewhere."

Re:Sample

[x0ra]

PC answer would actually be: "Sure come on, we care more about you than we do of our own citizens dying under bridges."

Re:The Muslim Threat

[dougdonovan]

thanks for the reminder, i need to pay a parking ticket.

Asylum for the bot

[Anonymous Coward]

So are they granting asylum then to the chatbot, or to the humans?

legal advice? how's that...legal from not a lawer?

[4wdloop]

...and lawyers help created it? Hell must have froze over....or more likely I am missing something. Ok, I generalize, some lawyers may be good persons.

Not that I personally am against it!

anti-donotpay-chatbot..?

[4wdloop]

How come the chatbot is this good - winning 16:25 cases?

Will govs now produce their version of chatbot for enforcement or judges to use and fight back?

Re:anti-donotpay-chatbot..?

[Khashishi]

I knew robots were coming for our jobs, but I didn't expect lawyers to be replaced so early on.

Re:The Muslim Threat

[Anonymous Coward]

The hard truth. These people aren't going to add to the hockey talent pool either.

Re:The Muslim Threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod up please!

hey...

[Anonymous Coward]

asl?

Re:The Muslim Threat

[kronix1986]

Here we have another alt-right snowflake triggered by the fact brown people exist in this world and sometimes have kids with white women.

Re:The Muslim Threat

[interkin3tic]

Inbreeding between cousins? Mentally retarded? Violent? Enemy of decency and civilization? Hey man, last time I drove through Tennessee or any of the flyover states I was scared too, but let's not talk about hillbillies... (ahem) I mean "scots-irish" like that...

awwww snowflake, boo hoo.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit, the 4-chan trolls deserve every downmod they get, I love watching the butthurt of the deplorables when their bigotry and lies get called for what they are, the rantings of primitive yesterdays men, the last gasp of the selfish assholes.

Re:legal advice? how's that...legal from not a law

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing about The LAW, is that its pretty square.
Going by the Guardian article image, and the questions at Donotpay's site: The goal of the bot is to gather information, and compile it.
Being a Dumb AI, it will follow its routine. By being a chatbot, it could detect wrong answers and ask again.

I.E Parking Tickets: What information is needed if you go to court. What would make photo evidence valid? Could you ask for CCTW footage? Copies of parking ticket? Bot would be able to look up local law to some degree, and citing earlier cases. Court cases for parking tickets isn't high level: Its routine, where knowing is half the battle.

I Am A Lawyer also means "you can trust this information to work in court, assuming i didn't fuck up citing, or forgot something".
Its basically a cheat sheet generator. With bonus points of being able to do weak googlefu, with weak interpretations that could miss.
I.E "I was in Zone A in Street Zetta in the City of Yorkyork, I got a ticket for Zone B, is this still valid?"

Re:The Muslim Threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Username checks out!

More Complicated?

[wisnoskij]

It sounds like he took a straightforward and simple solution like, a list of advice and rules, and turned it into a complicated guess the verb adventure.
I cannot imagine any situation where simply providing a list of advice would not be easier to use.

Re:The Muslim Threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Who left the gate open at the cunt farm...

I dunno, its kind of interesting seeing that there are fuckwits out there who can justify to themselves (cos thats what they learned fro their cousin-sister-mom) that it is ok to post brain farts like this in a public forum. It would be more interesting to see some actual demographics and population percentages, to know just how widespread this affliction still is, but sadly they are too scared to make themselves known publicly (or stand together in single, easily targeted groups).

Re:legal advice? how's that...legal from not a law

[TimSSG]

...and lawyers help created it? Hell must have froze over....or more likely I am missing something. Ok, I generalize, some lawyers may be good persons.

Not that I personally am against it!

Of course Hell froze over; Did you NOT hear the Chicago Cubs won the World Series in baseball! Tim S.

Re:Oh that's smart!

[Anonymous Coward]

you are a fucking retard

Imagine a world without lawyers

[Big Hairy Ian]

Imagine a world without lawyers