Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 708 posts

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#481

Post by kjkjadksj »

lolinder wrote: post #246

This company is either run by someone who doesn't understand the tech or is willfully fraudulent. ChatGPT and company are far from good enough to be entrusted with law. Having interacted extensively with modern LLMs, I absolutely know something like this would happen: > Defendant (as dictated by AI): The Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Smith in 1978... > Judge: There was no case Johnson v. Smith in 1978. LLMs hallu…

At the same time, all these cases are on the internet somewhere. It wouldn’t be too tricky to make a lawyer gpt that is heavily trained on existing legal documents, and is only allowed to quote verbatim from real sources.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#482

Post by kadoban »

jchw wrote: post #478
lolinder wrote: post #246

This company is either run by someone who doesn't understand the tech or is willfully fraudulent. ChatGPT and company are far from good enough to be entrusted with law. Having interacted extensively with modern LLMs, I absolutely know something like this would happen: > Defendant (as dictated by AI): The Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Smith in 1978... > Judge: There was no case Johnson v. Smith in 1978. LLMs hallu…

Pretty sure the whole reason why DoNotPay actually exists is because defending against parking tickets didn't actually require a strong defense. The tickets were flawed automation, and their formulaic nature justified and equally formulaic response, or something to that effect. Whether the LLM was actually going to output answers directly, or just be used to drive a behavior tree or something like that, is a question…

> Does anyone else have a better explanation for why there was such a visceral response?

It doesn't really matter if it'd work well or poorly. Lawyers don't want to be replaced, and being a lawyer entails a great ability to be annoying to delay/prevent things you don't want to happen.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#483

Post by madsbuch »

iinnPP wrote: post #88
madsbuch wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Denmark there is "fri process" that will ensure a lawyer is provided when really needed and you can't afford it – my guess is that other countries have similar systems.

The problem is that, most of the time, those lawyers are so loaded with cases that they cannot provide you full representation. Ask any US Federal DA or US Federal Public Defender who you know to be honest. Any. It may differ in your country, but it is unlikely.

> It may differ in your country, but it is unlikely.

It differs in my country, and it is very likely. The US follows an anglo approach to law. No country in the EU follows that – I do understand that it is the easiest to assume that other countries work like you expect, though not very productive.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#484

Post by giantg2 »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #365
freejazz wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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.

Most states also require a law degree in addition to passing the Bar.

But a fun fact is that magistrates generally aren't required to pass the Bar, nor hold a law degree. Most states require extremely basic courses of 40 or so hours of training. I know of a magistrate that has tried numerous times to pass the Bar and has failed. I'm not sure how much competence our system mandates.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#485

Post by 55555 »

newswasboring wrote: post #440
yunwal wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’ve been scamming people for years and hitting them with BS credit card charges. Just another abusive system tacked onto the rest.

That's a pretty definitive and bold assertion. Any source?

https://www.trustpilot.com/review/donotpay.com

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#486

Post by giantg2 »

freejazz wrote: post #473
giantg2 wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that perfectly well. That doesn't change what I've said as it applies to the examples above.

It does. Licensing has nothing to do with your credentials past having them. The state bar doesn't care which lawschool you went to, your LSAT score, your GPA, etc.

"It does"

How?

"Licensing has nothing to do with your credentials past having them."

The way that most credentialing is used for employment.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#487

Post by dclowd9901 »

lolinder wrote: post #246

This company is either run by someone who doesn't understand the tech or is willfully fraudulent. ChatGPT and company are far from good enough to be entrusted with law. Having interacted extensively with modern LLMs, I absolutely know something like this would happen: > Defendant (as dictated by AI): The Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Smith in 1978... > Judge: There was no case Johnson v. Smith in 1978. LLMs hallu…

This was never meant in good faith. The company did for the PR and got the PR.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#488

Post by fatbird »

jchw wrote: post #478
lolinder wrote: post #246

This company is either run by someone who doesn't understand the tech or is willfully fraudulent. ChatGPT and company are far from good enough to be entrusted with law. Having interacted extensively with modern LLMs, I absolutely know something like this would happen: > Defendant (as dictated by AI): The Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Smith in 1978... > Judge: There was no case Johnson v. Smith in 1978. LLMs hallu…

Pretty sure the whole reason why DoNotPay actually exists is because defending against parking tickets didn't actually require a strong defense. The tickets were flawed automation, and their formulaic nature justified and equally formulaic response, or something to that effect. Whether the LLM was actually going to output answers directly, or just be used to drive a behavior tree or something like that, is a question…

It had to be shot down harshly because there are some premises to a courtroom proceeding that aren't met by an AI as we currently have.

One of those is that the lawyer arguing a case is properly credentialed and has been admitted to the bar, and is a professional subject to malpractice standards, who can be held responsible for their performance. An AI spitting out statistically likely responses can't be considered an actual party to the proceedings in that sense.

If a lawyer cites a non-existent precedent, they can make their apologies to the court or be sanctioned. If the AI cites a non-existent precedent, there's literally no way to incorporate that error back into the AI because there's no factual underlying model against which to check the AI's output--unless you had an actual lawyer checking it, in which case, what's the point of the AI?

Someone standing in court, repeating what they hear through an earpiece, is literally committing a fraud on the court by presenting themselves as a credentialled attorney. The stunt of "haha, it was really just chatGPT!" would have had severe legal consequences for everyone involved. The harsh response saved DoNotPay from itself.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#490

Post by jamesdwilson »

lolinder wrote: post #417
mountainb wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's interesting is that sometimes it does a great job at something like telling you the holdings of a case, but then other times it gives you a completely incorrect response. If you ask it for things like "the X factor test from Johnson v. Smith" sometimes it will dutifully report the correct test in bullets, but other times will say the completely wrong thing. The issue I think is that it's pulling from too many…

> The issue I think is that it's pulling from too many sources. There are plenty of sources that are pretty machine readable that will give it good answers. There's a lot of training that can be eked out from the legal databases that already exist that could make it a lot better. If it takes in too much information from too many sources, it tends to get garbled. No, this is a common misunderstanding about the way the…

If it is never pulling from a source, then why is it able to provide citations?

check the chat bot on you.com:

https://you.com/search?q=list%20top%205%20best%20selling%20c...

Post reply on HN