4 ms·

DoNotPay seems to know very well what they’re doing. It really doesn’t strike me as true that law requires absolute precision. There are many adjacent (both ne

DoNotPay seems to know very well what they’re doing. It really doesn’t strike me as true that law requires absolute precision. There are many adjacent (both near and far) arguments that can work in law for any given case, since the interpreter is a human. You just need no silly mistakes that shatter credibility, but that’s very different from “get one thing wrong and the system doesn’t work at all or works in wildly unexpected ways.” Low end law will be one of the first areas to go due to this tech. DoNotPay actually has already been doing this stuff successfully for a while (not in court proceedings themselves though).

lolinder 4y ago
There are also many adjacent algorithms that could solve the same problem, but you still need to execute the algorithm correctly. LLMs are not ready for unsupervised use in any domain outside of curiosity, and what DoNotPay is proposing would be to let one roam free in a courtroom. I'm not at all opposed to using LLMs in the research and discovery phase. But having a naive defendant with no legal experience parroting an LLM in court is deeply problematic, even if the stakes are low in this particular category of law.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  That’s nowhere near analogous because between every working algorithm are massive gulfs of syntactic and semantic failure zones. This is not the case with human language, which is the whole power of both language production and language interpretation. Is it more problematic than this person 1) not being represented, 2) having to pay exorbitant fees to be represented, or 3) having an extremely overworked and disinterested public defender? I’m not convinced. The idea that we need to wait to do this stuff until the people whose profession is under threat give “permission” is dismissible on its face and is exactly why we should be doing this is as quickly as possible. For what it’s worth, I mostly agree with you: I’m doubtful the technology is there yet. But that’s a call for each defendant to make in each new case and so long as they’re of sound mind, they should be free to pick whatever legal counsel they want.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    "I’m not convinced." Yeah, no surprise. You seem completely unreasonable if you posit only these three options for freakin' traffic court...
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      What are the others? If you contest a ticket, you either have representation or you don’t. You can either afford good representation or you cannot.
      - notahacker 4y ago
        I mean, not contesting the ticket is likely to be a better option than delegating your chances of not being convicted of contempt of court or perjury to the truthfulness and legal understanding of an LLM...
        ethanbond 4y ago
        Sure if your objective is to minimize your own personal exposure. If your goal is to push toward a world where poor folks aren’t coerced into not contesting their tickets because they can’t afford to go to court or get representation, then maybe it is a good option.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > goal is to push toward a world where poor folks aren’t coerced into not contesting their tickets Invest in a company doing this properly and not pushing half-baked frauds into the world. Supervised learning, mock trials. You’re proposing turning those poor folk into Guinea pigs, gambling with their freedom from afar.
        ethanbond 4y ago
        This company has been doing this stuff for years. Yes this is a big step forward but it’s not from zero, as you’re suggesting. What makes you think they haven’t been doing mock trials and tons of supervised learning? And no, I’m not. I don’t think Defendant Zero (or one, or two, or 100) should be people whose lives would be seriously affected by errors. I’m pretty sure DNP doesn’t either.
freejazz 4y ago
"DoNotPay seems to know very well what they’re doing." What makes you think that? What they are doing is illegal. It's the unlicensed practice of law.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Their track record? Seems like this is the first you’re hearing of them, but this is just the latest (and yes, most ambitious) experiment. They’ve been successfully using technology to help normal people defeat abusive systems built by “the professions” for years.
  - yunwal 4y ago
    They’ve been scamming people for years and hitting them with BS credit card charges. Just another abusive system tacked onto the rest.
    - newswasboring 4y ago
      That's a pretty definitive and bold assertion. Any source?
      - 55555 4y ago
        https://www.trustpilot.com/review/donotpay.com https://www.trustpilot.com/review/donotpay.com
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    Most people successfully contest traffic tickets by just showing up to traffic court. It really is that easy. So, DoNotPay is basically just a scam taking money from people without providing anything of value.
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  So if a chat program can pass the bar exam, it's okay? Because I would bet that if a program can represent someone semi-competently in court, passing the bar exam which needs an objective marking criterion would be trivial by comparison.
mattwad 4y ago
It probably should not _replace_ a lawyer, though. Just enable a single lawyer to handle more cases
intrasight 4y ago
>DoNotPay seems to know very well what they’re doing. And even when they lose the win. Look at the publicity they are getting.

lolinder 4y ago

There are also many adjacent algorithms that could solve the same problem, but you still need to execute the algorithm correctly. LLMs are not ready for unsupervised use in any domain outside of curiosity, and what DoNotPay is proposing would be to let one roam free in a courtroom. I'm not at all opposed to using LLMs in the research and discovery phase. But having a naive defendant with no legal experience parroting an LLM in court is deeply problematic, even if the stakes are low in this particular category of law.

ethanbond 4y ago
That’s nowhere near analogous because between every working algorithm are massive gulfs of syntactic and semantic failure zones. This is not the case with human language, which is the whole power of both language production and language interpretation. Is it more problematic than this person 1) not being represented, 2) having to pay exorbitant fees to be represented, or 3) having an extremely overworked and disinterested public defender? I’m not convinced. The idea that we need to wait to do this stuff until the people whose profession is under threat give “permission” is dismissible on its face and is exactly why we should be doing this is as quickly as possible. For what it’s worth, I mostly agree with you: I’m doubtful the technology is there yet. But that’s a call for each defendant to make in each new case and so long as they’re of sound mind, they should be free to pick whatever legal counsel they want.
- freejazz 4y ago
  "I’m not convinced." Yeah, no surprise. You seem completely unreasonable if you posit only these three options for freakin' traffic court...
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    What are the others? If you contest a ticket, you either have representation or you don’t. You can either afford good representation or you cannot.
    - notahacker 4y ago
      I mean, not contesting the ticket is likely to be a better option than delegating your chances of not being convicted of contempt of court or perjury to the truthfulness and legal understanding of an LLM...
      - ethanbond 4y ago
        Sure if your objective is to minimize your own personal exposure. If your goal is to push toward a world where poor folks aren’t coerced into not contesting their tickets because they can’t afford to go to court or get representation, then maybe it is a good option.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > goal is to push toward a world where poor folks aren’t coerced into not contesting their tickets Invest in a company doing this properly and not pushing half-baked frauds into the world. Supervised learning, mock trials. You’re proposing turning those poor folk into Guinea pigs, gambling with their freedom from afar.
        ethanbond 4y ago
        This company has been doing this stuff for years. Yes this is a big step forward but it’s not from zero, as you’re suggesting. What makes you think they haven’t been doing mock trials and tons of supervised learning? And no, I’m not. I don’t think Defendant Zero (or one, or two, or 100) should be people whose lives would be seriously affected by errors. I’m pretty sure DNP doesn’t either.

freejazz 4y ago

"DoNotPay seems to know very well what they’re doing." What makes you think that? What they are doing is illegal. It's the unlicensed practice of law.

ethanbond 4y ago
Their track record? Seems like this is the first you’re hearing of them, but this is just the latest (and yes, most ambitious) experiment. They’ve been successfully using technology to help normal people defeat abusive systems built by “the professions” for years.
- yunwal 4y ago
  They’ve been scamming people for years and hitting them with BS credit card charges. Just another abusive system tacked onto the rest.
  - newswasboring 4y ago
    That's a pretty definitive and bold assertion. Any source?
    - 55555 4y ago
      https://www.trustpilot.com/review/donotpay.com https://www.trustpilot.com/review/donotpay.com
- gamblor956 4y ago
  Most people successfully contest traffic tickets by just showing up to traffic court. It really is that easy. So, DoNotPay is basically just a scam taking money from people without providing anything of value.
SuoDuanDao 4y ago
So if a chat program can pass the bar exam, it's okay? Because I would bet that if a program can represent someone semi-competently in court, passing the bar exam which needs an objective marking criterion would be trivial by comparison.

mattwad 4y ago

It probably should not _replace_ a lawyer, though. Just enable a single lawyer to handle more cases

intrasight 4y ago

>DoNotPay seems to know very well what they’re doing. And even when they lose the win. Look at the publicity they are getting.