Slashdot Mirror
'World's First Robot Lawyer' Now Available In All 50 States (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: A chatbot that provides free legal counsel using AI is now available in all 50 states starting today. This is following its success in New York, Seattle, and the UK, where it was invented by British entrepreneur Joshua Browder. Browder, who calls his invention "the world's first robot lawyer," estimates the bot has helped defeat 375,000 parking tickets in a span of two years. Browder, a junior at Stanford University, tells The Verge via Twitter that his chatbot could potentially experience legal repercussions from the government, but he is more concerned with competing with lawyers.
"The legal industry is more than a 200 billion dollar industry, but I am excited to make the law free," says Browder. "Some of the biggest law firms can't be happy!" Browder believes that his chatbot could also save government officials time and money. "Everybody can win," he says, "I think governments waste a huge amount of money employing people to read parking ticket appeals. DoNotPay sends it to them in a clear and easy to read format."
"The legal industry is more than a 200 billion dollar industry, but I am excited to make the law free," says Browder. "Some of the biggest law firms can't be happy!" Browder believes that his chatbot could also save government officials time and money. "Everybody can win," he says, "I think governments waste a huge amount of money employing people to read parking ticket appeals. DoNotPay sends it to them in a clear and easy to read format."
Not that that counts as prior art, but...
We seem to be closer and closer to Futurama every day, what's next, Atlanta underwater and hyper chicken lawyers?
We can finally begin killing all the lawyers.
First law of people: People are generally stupid.
some are legal. some are fun. some taste good.
It's a simple form. This is what attracts VC money and articles in major publications for this student? What the fuck.
To Whom it May Concern,
I received a letter claiming I committed a moving traffic violation in LOCATION on DATE.
As per the instructions, I am writing to plead 'not guilty' to this charge. Although this option is said to result in this matter going to court; it is my suggestion that the charges simply be dropped. This suggestion comes out of respect for tax payers, and my request that their hard earned money not be wasted in such proceedings.
As there is no evidence of my involvement with this alleged 'crime', as well as the fact that I am not granted my 6th amendment right to face my 'accuser' (a camera); I see no way the government could prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I also see find no legal requirement for me to implicate someone else in this process, as it is the government's responsibility to prove a person's guilt. It is also my 5th amendment right to remain silent on the
matter.
If it is the government's decision to move forward in this matter, I would request copies of any evidence the prosecution may have of my involvement in the 'offense'; as well as, all maintenance records for the camera(s) involved.
Sincerely,
NAME
Perfect for use with Cinco e-Trial
Twinstiq, game news
The site is little more than a series of guided form letters. It might be a useful site, but it's certainly not a "robot lawyer". It is scarcely even a chat bot.
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
n/c
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
So, Mississippi could use this chat bot for its public defender system?
Does the robot lawyer know anything about copyright law and revenge porn?
No matter what I type it just gives me search results for cease and desist debt collectors.
This is no Robot Lawyer. I am not sure exactly what it is to be called,
but a Robot Lawyer it is not. It is more like a "Robotic/Automated assistant for a small selection of certain legal matters that gives you a canned form or canned letter to use for the simplest situations", and
Its effectiveness depends partly on flying under the radar, because lawyers happen to often write the same kind of verbiage, and the letters they use can "Bluff the prosecution" out of pursuing further actions, that is, cause the authorities to skip over you because you're too much trouble and they'd actually have to do work to pursue you, since the canned forms make them THINK you have actually bothered with the expense to hiring lawyers, causing them to back off to avoid extra costs or adverse ruling against them.... So you can get the penalty cancelled by the court, and then the government workers don't bother to pursue the matter further, since it's not worth it in their minds.
COUGH. If they DID choose to pursue the matter, your Robotic "Lawyer" would be quickly outgunned.
No help for "children on my lawn"....
I'm guessing this will end about the same as Homer's Miracle Spine-O-Cylinder did when a bunch of chiropractors smashed it with clubs and sledge hammers.
It's not about the fast food worker...
A great many people in professional jobs can be automated easily.
Billions of people employed shuffling physical paper around the world could be just a few lines of code.
We can finally begin killing all the lawyers.
Some lawyers are great. I've never met people more dedicated to the betterment of the world than the public interest community of lawyers. A lot of people there who spend their lives in relatively low paying jobs when they could be much better paid elsewhere, and who change the lives of thousands of people in their communities. I also know lots of great people in private practice.
That being said, the system lawyers operate in creates a lot of problems by incentivizing bad behavior, and has many other problems. The cost of services is high. Reform is hard. Dispute resolution is ridiculously expensive for matters that actually go to trial, etc...
Real lawyers write in C++
There is a reason practicing law without a license is a crime. It is to ensure accountability. If a lawyer gives you bad advice, he can be sued for malpractice, lose his license, or even go to jail.
Well I'm not sure where you are where poor legal advice (from a suitably qualified legal professional) can result in a custodial sentence ... but yes, there's a bloody good reason that you take your advice from a practising [sic] lawyer: Most importantly, her liability insurance will go some way to repairing any loss the lawyer's incompetently given advice might cause you.
The first rule of legal practice when setting up a deal for a client is to ensure there is either a) an insured (or otherwise liquid) party who can be sued to recover any loss your client might suffer as the result of their (in-)actions, OR b) insurance taken directly by the client, for any likely negative eventuality leading to loss. That rule is broken at the very beginning in acting on the advice of a non-insured person! Not a good way to start.
That being said, for trivialities such as trying to blag your way out of paying a parking fine, the form letters this site apparently spits out are unlikely to cost you any more than the fine you'd be paying anyway. So unless it gets more serious than that (eg. robotic conveyancing) I don't see the site being sued. And hey, who knows, you might get lucky and scare some official off. Even criminal action, on the basis you state above, is taken against it is questionable ... does simply supplying form letters really amount to legal practice? Depends on the specific statutes I guess.
[Disclaimer: IAAL, but a non-practising one ... trying to explain to my mum that the reason I refuse to do her legal work is not because I'm a lazy ingrate brat is ... challenging.]
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
There was a robot shark used in Jaws back in 1975.
....and a cage for the robo battles to begin.
Just imagine how out of control our legal system will get when a robot designed with logic tries to deal with the "logic" of why people get divorced (or married, for that matter).
Sarbonn's blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/blog
What you're saying is you should have to professionally study the law in order to understand it.
Any country like that is better served by anarchy.
This guy is EXTREMELY brave for the exact reason you mention. Lawyers are NOT going to be happy about this.