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.
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.
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%.
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
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?
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
...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!
4wdloop
.... 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.