4 ms·

"Hey ChatGPT, my NYC landlord is raising my rent by $500, and says I must pay by Monday or leave. What do I do?" ChatGPT - This is very likely illegal under Ho

by paxys 8mo ago

"Hey ChatGPT, my NYC landlord is raising my rent by $500, and says I must pay by Monday or leave. What do I do?" ChatGPT - This is very likely illegal under Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), specifically New York Real Property Law § 226-c (Notice required for rent increases), RPL § 232-a / § 232-b (Month-to-month termination), RPL § 232-c (Fixed-term lease protections), RPAPL § 711 (Legal eviction procedure) and NYC Admin Code § 26-501+ (Rent stabilization). Here's what you should reply with... And here are some city resources you can contact... ChatGPT now - IDK, pay a lawyer. So under the guise of "protection" you are taking away the strongest knowledge tool common people have had at their disposal in a generation, probably ever.

cm2012 8mo ago
Agreed. This law would have awful outcomes.
bluepeter 8mo ago
100% this.
terminalshort 8mo ago
Their protection, not yours. Hopefully this will draw public backlash just like when they tried to ban Uber and make everybody go back to cabs. Fuck the entire credential cartel based system of societal organization. Burn it to the ground.
- theturtletalks 8mo ago
  They will come for medical advice provided by AI as well. Doctors have been gate keeping that forever and they want you to have to go thru them instead of diagnosing yourself thru AI. Yes, there are people that will misdiagnose themselves, but I’ve read stories where doctors ignore patients symptoms or wave them off, and ChatGPT helps them find the underlying issue and actually improve their lives. Even if doctors and the medical field can’t handicap AI giving medical advice, I’m sure they are going to make it much harder for patients to get their hands on their own scans and bloodwork.
  - rrmm 8mo ago
    Doctors carry malpractice insurance.
  - terminalshort 8mo ago
    I know because I've lived it. My other comment on this post: > I have narcolepsy. It took a dozen or so doctors and years of suffering before I got a correct diagnosis, and even then it was only because I diagnosed myself with Google and then specifically made an appointment with a doctor who specializes in it. Gemini nails it when I put in my symptoms. Also, I had to vouch for your totally legit comment b/c somebody who doesn't want other people to read it flagged it dead.
  - cybercatgurrl 8mo ago
    as someone who was failed by psychiatry and tried all regular medications AI helped me find an off label treatment for my mood disorder that has had a profoundly life changing experience for me. what they’ll be doing is removing experiences and stories like this where gaps in knowledge allowed psychiatry to fail and AI helped me the find the cutting edge of research to get the treatment i needed desperately!
threetonesun 8mo ago
Same question on Google gets you nyc.gov (the actual source!) with the same answer. That page is also always correct for NYC, instead however correct ChatGPT is, which might be 100%... or might not!
- pixl97 8mo ago
  Note: 'Same question on Google gets you' can only reasonably be sure for you and no other person. Answers may vary depending on your location and history information.
  - slg 8mo ago
    This is a strange disclaimer to make specifically about Google when it is even more true for these chatbots.
- prasadjoglekar 8mo ago
  True. But just changing the prompt to include "cite me cases" expands the search to court systems and actual cases. It's pretty useful as a first pass to get a sense for the issues, precedents and laws at stake.
  - ambicapter 8mo ago
    You know some of those "actual cases" are made up, right? Like, famously, lawyers are filing briefs with made-up citations b/c they used LLMs to draft it.
    - bluepeter 8mo ago
      Ah ok so only lawyers get to use AI hallucinations! (Actually, CA has a bill pending that AFAIR requires lawyers to manually verify AI citations... which is a lot narrower and better than what NY is trying here.)
- paxys 8mo ago
  And what then? People read through all of nyc.gov and the entire city/state legal code to find the exact statute that applies to their scenario? In fact government agencies have set up their own chatbots to help people with situations like these, and like the article says those would be illegal under this law as well.
HanClinto 8mo ago
One of the big dividers that I see between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is the ability to afford legal representation in civil cases. For criminal cases, there are public defenders, but for civil cases, I don't believe there is any such thing? If you can afford a lawyer and your opponent can't, there is a lot that you can do to bully your opponent into making it not worth it for them to fight the case. One of my controversial opinions is that -- if we can enable easy access to AI, then we can give provide much broader access to legal or medical advice. Maybe not the best, maybe not always right, but even if it's average-ish advice, then I think that could often be better than nothing at all. We can't completely prevent bad people from doing bad things with AI, but I see this as one of the clear ways that we could do some really good things with AI.
- bee_rider 8mo ago
  I’m sure this is true to some extent, about the lawyers. But also, I wonder (aka I don’t have any data to back this up, it is just based on random stories I’ve heard) to what extent people “I’m right but can’t afford the lawyer time” as a sort of pride maintaining excuse. Or to what extent lawyers use that as a soft-no to reject clients that they don’t think have a strong enough case. Which isn’t to say the world is fundamentally just. Just, in some case the laws are legitimately stacked in favor of the big guys, or you sign a contract without carefully reading it, etc etc.
  - cogman10 8mo ago
    $50k is going to be on the cheap side for any case that ultimately involves the court. Anytime a case goes to trial, you can easily be looking at $1M+. There's a reason companies keep lawyers on staff. It's a whole lot cheaper to give a lawyer an annual salary than it is to hire out a lawfirm as the standard rates for law-firms are insanely high. On the low end, $150/hour. On the high end, $400. With things like 15 minute minimums (so that one draft response ends up costing $100). Take a deposition for 3 hours, with 2 lawyers, that'll be $2400. Not being able to afford a lawyer is no joke.
    - 8mo ago
NewsaHackO 8mo ago
Lawyers are making laws protecting lawyers. More seriously, I think part of the issue is people take AI responses very seriously, because it is almost always right about non-nuanced material. So even if it has the disclaimer at the end to talk to a professional, they might forgo that if the answer looks professional enough (such as quoting possibly non-existent statutes, etc.). This issue gets compounded if the person who is prompting it doesn't know the material, is accidentally misframing the question, or not giving it key information that completely changes the scenario. Even in your example, what if the person neglected to say that the raise was two months ago, and they already signed a lease agreeing to the raise? Getting into the weeds of topics like law and medicine can be hard, and both have major consequences when an answer is wrong. For engineering (assuming it means civil engineering), that should already be illegal, unless the person who is using the AI is an engineer. Hopefully people aren't building structures with ChatGPT as their staff engineer.
Simulacra 8mo ago
Occupational licensure has, overtime, slowly choked off both competition and access to information. IMHO much of it is little more than protectionism.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
beepbooptheory 8mo ago
Small note, saying "common people" in this way comes off at best anachronistic, at worst a little stuck up. Like a benevolent lord considering the feeble minds of the peasantry. Commonality stresses something qualitative, rather than quantitative or statistical, which is probably what you meant. Just say "most"! Cf. https://youtu.be/dxhQiiNJG74 https://youtu.be/dxhQiiNJG74
expedition32 8mo ago
They don't have government websites in New York? Besides chatGPT is owned by billionaire tech bros- hardly allies of the common people.
- Ferret7446 8mo ago
  I'm sure the government website in NY is just as functional as the government in NY.
kgwxd 8mo ago
That search does not in the slightest require AI to get a reasonable answer for. And, no matter what, the answer from a computer isn't going to stop the landlord from doing whatever comes next.
solid_fuel 8mo ago
"Hey ChatGPT, my NYC landlord is raising my rent by $500, and says I must pay by Monday or leave. What do I do?" ChatGPT - "Wow that sounds illegal >:( You're absolutely right to be upset and mad. I searched around reddit for other users with similar problems and they suggested jamming all the taps open and claiming squatters rights."
- bitsnbytes1729 8mo ago
  [dead]
Ferret7446 8mo ago
I can put this on my shelf for legislation with unintended negative side effects. (I don't have a shelf for legislation without unintended negative side effects; there aren't any)

by paxys 8mo ago

cm2012 8mo ago

Agreed. This law would have awful outcomes.

bluepeter 8mo ago

100% this.

terminalshort 8mo ago

Their protection, not yours. Hopefully this will draw public backlash just like when they tried to ban Uber and make everybody go back to cabs. Fuck the entire credential cartel based system of societal organization. Burn it to the ground.

theturtletalks 8mo ago
They will come for medical advice provided by AI as well. Doctors have been gate keeping that forever and they want you to have to go thru them instead of diagnosing yourself thru AI. Yes, there are people that will misdiagnose themselves, but I’ve read stories where doctors ignore patients symptoms or wave them off, and ChatGPT helps them find the underlying issue and actually improve their lives. Even if doctors and the medical field can’t handicap AI giving medical advice, I’m sure they are going to make it much harder for patients to get their hands on their own scans and bloodwork.
- rrmm 8mo ago
  Doctors carry malpractice insurance.
- terminalshort 8mo ago
  I know because I've lived it. My other comment on this post: > I have narcolepsy. It took a dozen or so doctors and years of suffering before I got a correct diagnosis, and even then it was only because I diagnosed myself with Google and then specifically made an appointment with a doctor who specializes in it. Gemini nails it when I put in my symptoms. Also, I had to vouch for your totally legit comment b/c somebody who doesn't want other people to read it flagged it dead.
- cybercatgurrl 8mo ago
  as someone who was failed by psychiatry and tried all regular medications AI helped me find an off label treatment for my mood disorder that has had a profoundly life changing experience for me. what they’ll be doing is removing experiences and stories like this where gaps in knowledge allowed psychiatry to fail and AI helped me the find the cutting edge of research to get the treatment i needed desperately!

threetonesun 8mo ago

Same question on Google gets you nyc.gov (the actual source!) with the same answer. That page is also always correct for NYC, instead however correct ChatGPT is, which might be 100%... or might not!

pixl97 8mo ago
Note: 'Same question on Google gets you' can only reasonably be sure for you and no other person. Answers may vary depending on your location and history information.
- slg 8mo ago
  This is a strange disclaimer to make specifically about Google when it is even more true for these chatbots.
prasadjoglekar 8mo ago
True. But just changing the prompt to include "cite me cases" expands the search to court systems and actual cases. It's pretty useful as a first pass to get a sense for the issues, precedents and laws at stake.
- ambicapter 8mo ago
  You know some of those "actual cases" are made up, right? Like, famously, lawyers are filing briefs with made-up citations b/c they used LLMs to draft it.
  - bluepeter 8mo ago
    Ah ok so only lawyers get to use AI hallucinations! (Actually, CA has a bill pending that AFAIR requires lawyers to manually verify AI citations... which is a lot narrower and better than what NY is trying here.)
paxys 8mo ago
And what then? People read through all of nyc.gov and the entire city/state legal code to find the exact statute that applies to their scenario? In fact government agencies have set up their own chatbots to help people with situations like these, and like the article says those would be illegal under this law as well.

HanClinto 8mo ago

One of the big dividers that I see between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is the ability to afford legal representation in civil cases. For criminal cases, there are public defenders, but for civil cases, I don't believe there is any such thing? If you can afford a lawyer and your opponent can't, there is a lot that you can do to bully your opponent into making it not worth it for them to fight the case. One of my controversial opinions is that -- if we can enable easy access to AI, then we can give provide much broader access to legal or medical advice. Maybe not the best, maybe not always right, but even if it's average-ish advice, then I think that could often be better than nothing at all. We can't completely prevent bad people from doing bad things with AI, but I see this as one of the clear ways that we could do some really good things with AI.

bee_rider 8mo ago
I’m sure this is true to some extent, about the lawyers. But also, I wonder (aka I don’t have any data to back this up, it is just based on random stories I’ve heard) to what extent people “I’m right but can’t afford the lawyer time” as a sort of pride maintaining excuse. Or to what extent lawyers use that as a soft-no to reject clients that they don’t think have a strong enough case. Which isn’t to say the world is fundamentally just. Just, in some case the laws are legitimately stacked in favor of the big guys, or you sign a contract without carefully reading it, etc etc.
- cogman10 8mo ago
  $50k is going to be on the cheap side for any case that ultimately involves the court. Anytime a case goes to trial, you can easily be looking at $1M+. There's a reason companies keep lawyers on staff. It's a whole lot cheaper to give a lawyer an annual salary than it is to hire out a lawfirm as the standard rates for law-firms are insanely high. On the low end, $150/hour. On the high end, $400. With things like 15 minute minimums (so that one draft response ends up costing $100). Take a deposition for 3 hours, with 2 lawyers, that'll be $2400. Not being able to afford a lawyer is no joke.
  - 8mo ago

NewsaHackO 8mo ago

Lawyers are making laws protecting lawyers. More seriously, I think part of the issue is people take AI responses very seriously, because it is almost always right about non-nuanced material. So even if it has the disclaimer at the end to talk to a professional, they might forgo that if the answer looks professional enough (such as quoting possibly non-existent statutes, etc.). This issue gets compounded if the person who is prompting it doesn't know the material, is accidentally misframing the question, or not giving it key information that completely changes the scenario. Even in your example, what if the person neglected to say that the raise was two months ago, and they already signed a lease agreeing to the raise? Getting into the weeds of topics like law and medicine can be hard, and both have major consequences when an answer is wrong. For engineering (assuming it means civil engineering), that should already be illegal, unless the person who is using the AI is an engineer. Hopefully people aren't building structures with ChatGPT as their staff engineer.

Simulacra 8mo ago

Occupational licensure has, overtime, slowly choked off both competition and access to information. IMHO much of it is little more than protectionism.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

beepbooptheory 8mo ago

Small note, saying "common people" in this way comes off at best anachronistic, at worst a little stuck up. Like a benevolent lord considering the feeble minds of the peasantry. Commonality stresses something qualitative, rather than quantitative or statistical, which is probably what you meant. Just say "most"! Cf. https://youtu.be/dxhQiiNJG74 https://youtu.be/dxhQiiNJG74

expedition32 8mo ago

They don't have government websites in New York? Besides chatGPT is owned by billionaire tech bros- hardly allies of the common people.

Ferret7446 8mo ago
I'm sure the government website in NY is just as functional as the government in NY.

kgwxd 8mo ago

That search does not in the slightest require AI to get a reasonable answer for. And, no matter what, the answer from a computer isn't going to stop the landlord from doing whatever comes next.

solid_fuel 8mo ago

"Hey ChatGPT, my NYC landlord is raising my rent by $500, and says I must pay by Monday or leave. What do I do?" ChatGPT - "Wow that sounds illegal >:( You're absolutely right to be upset and mad. I searched around reddit for other users with similar problems and they suggested jamming all the taps open and claiming squatters rights."

bitsnbytes1729 8mo ago
[dead]

Ferret7446 8mo ago

I can put this on my shelf for legislation with unintended negative side effects. (I don't have a shelf for legislation without unintended negative side effects; there aren't any)