Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
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.
Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
A chatbot can not get Congress to fund care for the large increase in veterans Congress decided to create.
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.
Nullius in verba