DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 4:48 PM UTC

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #63

ziddoap wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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"…

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 4:48 PM UTC

manofmanysmiles wrote: post #14

It's amazing to me that people think they need other people to resolve disputes, or that "law" is some kind of magic... And yet people keep thinking so, both selling it as magic, and buying it as magic, and not once taking the time to consider what the words on the paper might mean.

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 4:50 PM UTC

gradyfps wrote: post #7

"In 2021, Browder reported that DoNotPay had 250K subscribers; in May 2023, Browder said that DoNotPay had “well over 200,000 subscribers”. To date, DoNotPay has resolved over 2 million cases and offers over 200 use cases on its website. Though DoNotPay has not disclosed its revenue, it charges $36 every two months. Given this, it can be estimated that DoNotPay is generating $54 million in annual revenue, assuming th…

Post by dogleash » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 4:55 PM UTC

nashashmi wrote: post #30

FTC overreached here: the AI was not tested to see if it is like a lawyer’s level of work. Why would anyone have to do this kind of study? Back in the day, anyone who touted AI generated works by default exclaimed that the work was not as good as a human. That changed now but was a valid statement back then.

Post by pb7 » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 4:57 PM UTC

ziddoap wrote: post #66

Palmik wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they help regular people defend themselves while saving on legal costs or not? Most of these cases wouldn't be defended at all otherwise.

> Did they help regular people defend themselves while saving on legal costs or not? Do you get a free pass to do shitty things as long as you do some good things too? I am totally onboard with the concept of the business, just not this particular implementation of it.