|
Boris Galerkin posted:The way I see it is that I don't need a food permit to cook food for myself so why should I need a law permit to use an AI Chatbot to represent myself? That's how I see it anyway. Because you're not using the chatbot to represent yourself. You're being represented by DoNotPay Inc's robot lawyer. As for why it falls on that side of the line, the simple answer is "because that's how DoNotPay markets it themselves". If they want to get the benefit of the doubt, they need to at least try to rules-lawyer their way around it. If they're just going to openly claim that they're providing a "robot lawyer", something that is very clearly not allowed, the system will happily take them at their word and tell them to gently caress off. There's certainly a argument to be made that DoNotPay is just an a system for providing self-help legal resources. But if DoNotPay wants to use that argument, they have to make it themselves - bar associations aren't going to make it on their behalf. If they're going to openly advertise themselves as breaking the rules, then nobody's going to waste any time arguing over whether they're actually breaking the rules or not. Incidentally, even if DoNotPay advertised as just self-help resources, they'd still be against the rules, because in many jurisdictions you can't use internet-connected devices in the courtroom.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
The real issue with the whole thing is the company's sheer hubris. It's the epitome of the lovely "disruption" ethos: they could have done controlled tests and worked with lawyers to prove out their idea. Instead, they tried to jump straight to arguing in front of SCOTUS. When that was impossible, they wanted to do the same thing in front of a lower court. It's the same attitude Tesla shows with Autopilot: they want to unilaterally experiment within the public domain in areas that affect other peoples' lives, without bothering to work with or get the permission/acceptance of the existing experts in that field. And remember that they were actively trying to conceal it from the judges. The explicit goal was to slip it under the radar and then pull it out as a fait accompli after the trial. The American legal system sucks! The idea of providing competent, low-cost, accessible counsel is great! But that change shouldn't happen because some company has a whacky idea one day and just goes ahead and imposes it on everybody else. Process matters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:So, IANAL, but if I stand in front of a court and say junk, I'm the one responsible for that, even if a robot is whispering in my ear telling me to say stuff. If my buddy Tony the not-lawyer says "just fart loudly and you're free to go", the judge shouldn't care, I'm the guy responsible for doing what I do in the court. If Tony is my lawyer and he says that, and he is representing me, then there's a chance he does take a lot of the blame. You aren't actually fully responsible for your defense in court (unless you are pro se) and there is a concept called "ineffective counsel" that can get cases thrown out if your attorney was so bad that it directly impacted your case. If the chatbot is treated the same as an attorney, then it is possible to get a mistrial due to a bad AI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
I think it breaks down to: the chatbot should be treated as reference material, not an attorney.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
But it's not reference material, it's dynamically feeding you answers in response to your current circumstances without your input.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because you're not using the chatbot to represent yourself. You're being represented by DoNotPay Inc's robot lawyer.. So could an ai programmer use their own ai lawbot in court?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
dpkg chopra posted:But it's not reference material, it's dynamically feeding you answers in response to your current circumstances without your input. I swear I'm not being willfully dense but if I can google for a playbook of what to say in court (e.g., if x then say y, if a then say b, etc) then I literally don't see a difference between following that playbook verbatim vs repeating verbatim what a chatbot says. In both cases I can also choose not to repeat verbatim what my playbook/chatbot says. e: Sure I get that you can't have an internet connected device in court but if that's the only argument then what the hell, it's 2023. Get with the times grandpa.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
ianmacdo posted:So could an ai programmer use their own ai lawbot in court? If you present it as using an algorithm to help you find relevant law and phrases to make your own arguments with, then it's really no different from using a search engine on a law database... ...as long as you print it all out in advance, anyway! Because you can't bring your cell phone to the courtroom and use it to send audio off to the internet in realtime. If you present it as using your own robot lawyer, the judge will tell you to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:42
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:An AI would probably do very poorly on the LSAT or Bar exam, but very well on a law school class exam. I had a very high score on the LSAT and have been using ChatGPT to check my code in my intro level programming courses. It can absolutely do the LSAT. It can write the administrative law decisions I was earning up to $80,000 a year to write until I got out. Hoping to get a nice job managing this fusion of law and tech in the future. Boris Galerkin posted:e: I'm willing to accept that I'm 100% wrong but I just don't really see how choosing to use an AI Chatbot to represent myself by repeating it verbatim is any different from looking up a dinner recipe on NYT Cooking and following it step by step to make dinner for myself. Boris Galerkin posted:I swear I'm not being willfully dense but if I can google for a playbook of what to say in court (e.g., if x then say y, if a then say b, etc) then I literally don't see a difference between following that playbook verbatim vs repeating verbatim what a chatbot says. In both cases I can also choose not to repeat verbatim what my playbook/chatbot says. It's not different for you. Its different for the guy who wrote the book claiming to teach you to perform a very technical and important and thus, highly regulated, skill Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jan 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:e: Sure I get that you can't have an internet connected device in court but if that's the only argument then what the hell, it's 2023. Get with the times grandpa. https://www.google.com/search?q=hubris
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
I mean, engineers don’t use abacuses anymore. They use highly specialized software to compute and analyze the poo poo they design and build. Chemists aren’t tinkering around with vials of “earth” and “water” and trying to combine them to make gold. They’re also using highly specialized machines and software to control their reactions and/or provide analyses. Etc and so on. Tradition for tradition sake is just inexplicable. If that’s the case why aren’t lawyers still wearing wigs and poo poo? The world has moved on. Internet connected devices are literally everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
I know little about the law but having looked at some of the programming answers ChatGPT will spit out, I wouldn't let one represent me over even a parking fine.Boris Galerkin posted:
Lots of European countries still do. Mega Comrade fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jan 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
dpkg chopra posted:Because you're not representing yourself, that's the whole point. Main Paineframe posted:Because you're not using the chatbot to represent yourself. You're being represented by DoNotPay Inc's robot lawyer. I think you're both wrong and buying into the DoNotPay's narrative that their software is a lawyer or something even close. If I bring a calculator to court to represent myself in a math intensive trial, am I being actually represented by the programmers at Texas Instruments? No, I'm responsible for how I use software tools. If I am in a tax law trial, and I use TurboTax to try and build a defense(but don't actually submit my taxes via TurboTax, bringing their liability into it), am I actually going to trial with Intuit as my representation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
ianmacdo posted:So could an ai programmer use their own ai lawbot in court?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 19:36
|
|
|
withak posted:Can law enforcement subpeona the records of what you told your chatbot not-lawyer from whatever tech company is holding them? Probably. The tech companies could also just willingly share it with law enforcement too. Kind of like how Ring doorbells just let cops track people around neighborhoods with no warrant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
But if the chatbot is hosted locally on your machine and maintains only minimal diagnostic logs and no record of user interactions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 19:50
|
|
|
Oh seems we actually have an answer on if it could get qualified as a lawyer https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/chatgpt-passes-law-school-exams-despite-mediocre-performance-2023-01-25/ quote:ChatGPT cannot yet outscore most law students on exams, new research suggests, but it can eke out a passing grade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
Do you guys think attorneys pause mid argument in front of a judge to type in web searches on their laptops
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
The idea of allowing lawyers to just have laptops open in court so they can google poo poo mid-trial for their argument sounds like an absolute circus. And not even an entertaining and useful circus like if political debates included real-time fact-checking on a big screen behind the candidates when one of them is lying their rear end off.ianmacdo posted:So could an ai programmer use their own ai lawbot in court? No because the necessary equipment to interact with it will not be allowed in the courtroom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Do you guys think attorneys pause mid argument in front of a judge to type in web searches on their laptops In most misdemeanor criminal proceedings, they do pause in the middle to slowly flip through their notes because they can't remember the details of their case because the AGs and PDs have so many cases to handle. It's just as awkward as when someone was giving a presentation in class and stopped for 45 seconds to find their place. That 45 seconds feels like an eternity when it is completely silent. Evil Fluffy posted:The idea of allowing lawyers to just have laptops open in court so they can google poo poo mid-trial for their argument sounds like an absolute circus. And not even an entertaining and useful circus like if political debates included real-time fact-checking on a big screen behind the candidates when one of them is lying their rear end off. It definitely happened during Zoom hearings when Covid started. Checking on your laptop mid speech is a circus, but it's really not a big deal to just have it available. Unless you get a judge who is very mad about showing respect to the institution/judicial officers and wants you making eye contact or staring ahead during the entire proceedings. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jan 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Do you guys think attorneys pause mid argument in front of a judge to type in web searches on their laptops I mean, if Shatner pauses are allowed, then... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:I mean, if Shatner pauses are allowed, then... Denny Crane
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:In most misdemeanor criminal proceedings, they do pause in the middle to slowly flip through their notes because they can't remember the details of their case because the AGs and PDs have so many cases to handle. Nvidia developed tech that simulates unbroken eye contact, regardless of where the streamer is actually looking. https://kotaku.com/creepy-eye-contact-stare-ai-nvidia-broadcast-1-4-update-1850025394 Could easily be used in this case
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
In the subscription era, you can lose your access to letters https://twitter.com/semaforben/status/1618683572839387138
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:Nvidia developed tech that simulates unbroken eye contact, regardless of where the streamer is actually looking. I’m pretty sure FaceTime has done this forever now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
T Zero posted:In the subscription era, you can lose your access to letters “Chose not to renew due to price increase” is not the same thing as “can’t afford.” Like I can afford to buy a Tesla but I choose not to because their price point vs build quality is poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I think you're both wrong and buying into the DoNotPay's narrative that their software is a lawyer or something even close. Refer back to what I said earlier: Main Paineframe posted:As for why it falls on that side of the line, the simple answer is "because that's how DoNotPay markets it themselves". If they want to get the benefit of the doubt, they need to at least try to rules-lawyer their way around it. If they're just going to openly claim that they're providing a "robot lawyer", something that is very clearly not allowed, the system will happily take them at their word and tell them to gently caress off. If someone dealing with a major bureaucracy openly says themselves that they're breaking the rules, the bureaucracy isn't going to go out of its way to check whether that's true. It'll just say "stop breaking the rules, dumbass". Neither the bar associations nor the court system want to waste time or effort peeling back the marketing jargon to define what DoNotPay is actually doing. If DoNotPay says they're bringing in a robot lawyer, the system will respond "your robot lawyer doesn't have a law license", and that'll be that. If DoNotPay wants to argue that they're just providing a self-help tool and not an actual lawyer, then maybe they'd get a different result. But they're not willing to argue that, because it'd go against their marketing and against the story they're telling investors. It's also quite possible that DoNotPay was always going to back out and claim Big Law forced them. There's been some suggestions that DoNotPay is actually fake, and that they're just using a fill-in-the-blanks template with some tweaks from human employees. Here's some excerpts from a long Twitter thread by someone who actually gave it a try: https://twitter.com/KathrynTewson/status/1617918604242227200 https://twitter.com/KathrynTewson/status/1617930994346250240 https://twitter.com/KathrynTewson/status/1617937290252423169
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
T Zero posted:In the subscription era, you can lose your access to letters That's been a thing for as long as I remember. If you're big, you have bespoke licensing deals to get the fonts you want, unless you're big / important / old enough to have your own house fonts that are part of your brand. e: And telling Linotype to eat poo poo is always great. e2: or Hoefler. gently caress Hoefler too. Antigravitas fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jan 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
Oh how I love instructing new designers on the necessity of selecting open source fonts for publication. theleagueofmoveabletype.com is a great resource, good place to start for your upgraded font collection.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
A Google employee of 11 years says he and his wife stared at each other in 'disbelief' when they realized they'd both been laid off by the companyquote:A Google engineer said he and his wife stared at each other in "disbelief" upon learning on Friday they'd both been laid off by the company. i knew that the h-1b visa program is severely hosed and allows companies to be highly exploitative with their foreign workers, but i guess i still hadn't realized the scale of the problem. is it typical to for someone to have been in the country for over a decade and still be on an h-1b? i guess i naively assumed that there would be an easy transition to permanent residency after a number of years i know how stressful layoffs can be when you have kids and a mortgage, i can't imagine the extra layer of stress that must come with having two months before you have to move your entire family to another country. loving inhuman
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
IIRC the line to getting a green card is country dependent, so people from China or India are hosed. It's stupid, but there's not much political will to change it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 21:56
|
|
|
When execs say stuff like they take "full responsibility for the decisions that led us here" and continues their usual late stage capitalism bullshit, every employee getting fired should be allowed to take a shot at them consequence-free.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 22:23
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:When execs say stuff like they take "full responsibility for the decisions that led us here" and continues their usual late stage capitalism bullshit, every employee getting fired should be allowed to take a shot at them consequence-free. “I take full responsibility” is the new thoughts and prayers
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 22:33
|
|
|
nachos posted:“I take full responsibility” is the new thoughts and prayers Yes. If they took full responsibility they'd resign. Not only are they taking zero responsibility, they stand to make money on the layoffs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
Basically every country can get up to 7% of the available green cards that year total across both family and employer sponsorship, so China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines all have mega backlogs. Another wrinkle is it's not technically by passport, but country of birth
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:i knew that the h-1b visa program is severely hosed and allows companies to be highly exploitative with their foreign workers, but i guess i still hadn't realized the scale of the problem. is it typical to for someone to have been in the country for over a decade and still be on an h-1b? i guess i naively assumed that there would be an easy transition to permanent residency after a number of years H-1Bs are for 3 years, extendable to 6, with a few ways to go beyond that. That guy's LinkedIn says he was in India until 2019, though, so he's probably still on his first H-1B. It's a huge hassle to get a green card, doubly so for Indian citizens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:Nvidia developed tech that simulates unbroken eye contact, regardless of where the streamer is actually looking. They could even create nVidia Court Vision that adjusts this on a U.S. court Zoom call so that everyone's but the judge's eyes look slightly upwards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:e: I'm willing to accept that I'm 100% wrong but I just don't really see how choosing to use an AI Chatbot to represent myself by repeating it verbatim is any different from looking up a dinner recipe on NYT Cooking and following it step by step to make dinner for myself. The threats from the bar are not directed at the defendant who will be in the courtroom. The threats were directed at DoNotPay for providing legal advice without a license *inside of a courtroom*. Again, the defendant using the AI chatbot in their own defense is not the party being threatened by the bar. You can defend yourself with random poo poo you Google all day long. (You'll lose, but you can do it.) DoNotPay is likely on steady legal ground with their standard business model of generating mad lib PDFs from templates, the same as all the Nolo Press books. A person cannot sit outside the courtroom, listen to the proceedings on the phone, and direct the defendant via an earpiece in real time. That's practicing law without a license. Bonus points that the defendant was not going to disclose that they were using an AI chatbot to the judge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
is an ai chatbot a person now
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:is an ai chatbot a person now Currently, not legally Star trek had a lot to say on this topic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 05:47
|
|
