4 ms·

Not sure about the history, I based my comment on this quote from the article: >[...] DoNotPay's legal service [...] relying on an API with OpenAI's ChatGPT.

Not sure about the history, I based my comment on this quote from the article: >[...] DoNotPay's legal service [...] relying on an API with OpenAI's ChatGPT. Perhaps they rolled their own chatbot then later switched to ChatGPT? Either way, they probably should have a lawyer involved at some point in the process.

dragonwriter 2y ago
My understanding is that they had much more linear automation of very specific, narrow, high-frequency processes — basically form letters plus some process automation — before they got GPT and decided they could do a lot more “lawyer” things with it.
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
Yes I think you are right about that. Someone else called it "mad libs" and that is very much what it felt like back in 2017/18. Idk why they needed to have a lawyer involved though. Many processes in life just need an "official" sounding response: to get to the next phase, or open the gate to talk to a real human, or even to close the issue with a positive result. Many people are not able to conjure up an "official" sounding response from nothing, so these chatbot/ChatGPTs are great ways for them to generate a response to use for their IRL need (parking ticket, letter to landlord, etc).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- everforward 2y ago
  "Lawyer" is a regulated term that comes with a lot of expectations of the "lawyer" (liability for malpractice, a bunch of duties, etc). You can't just say that something is a lawyer any more than you could do the same with doctors or police officers. Machines are also not allowed to be the "author" of court documents if they actually get to court (so far as I'm aware). A lawyer has to sign off and claim it as their own work, and doing so without the lawyer reading it is pretty taboo (I think maybe sanctionable by the BAR but I could be wrong).
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    >You can't just say that something is a lawyer any more than you could do the same with doctors or police officers Do you think WebMD should be renamed? Lawyers seem to be better at defending their turf than doctors or cops.

dragonwriter 2y ago

My understanding is that they had much more linear automation of very specific, narrow, high-frequency processes — basically form letters plus some process automation — before they got GPT and decided they could do a lot more “lawyer” things with it.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

Yes I think you are right about that. Someone else called it "mad libs" and that is very much what it felt like back in 2017/18. Idk why they needed to have a lawyer involved though. Many processes in life just need an "official" sounding response: to get to the next phase, or open the gate to talk to a real human, or even to close the issue with a positive result. Many people are not able to conjure up an "official" sounding response from nothing, so these chatbot/ChatGPTs are great ways for them to generate a response to use for their IRL need (parking ticket, letter to landlord, etc).

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
everforward 2y ago
"Lawyer" is a regulated term that comes with a lot of expectations of the "lawyer" (liability for malpractice, a bunch of duties, etc). You can't just say that something is a lawyer any more than you could do the same with doctors or police officers. Machines are also not allowed to be the "author" of court documents if they actually get to court (so far as I'm aware). A lawyer has to sign off and claim it as their own work, and doing so without the lawyer reading it is pretty taboo (I think maybe sanctionable by the BAR but I could be wrong).
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  >You can't just say that something is a lawyer any more than you could do the same with doctors or police officers Do you think WebMD should be renamed? Lawyers seem to be better at defending their turf than doctors or cops.