Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

111–120 of 218 posts

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

#111
Yes, I get it they did a bad thing. But most of what they are setup to fight is people abusing the legal system so it’s not unfair to fight fire with fire surely?

As an example I parked my car to drop my daughter off at a party and paid online - but mistyped the little number for the car park and ended up paying for 3 hours parking somewhere across the country.

Naturally the private car park tries to charge me 20x the parking fee as a “fine” - which they can whistle for frankly. But they sent varying letters that sound but don’t actually say “court” or “legal action” (things like “solicitors action prior to court”

I kept sending them the same answer they kept rejecting it

Then they actually sued me in county court. Oh wow I thought I better pay. And as a court judgement is really bad on credit record (one above bankruptcy) it’s serious. But I checked the court website anyway to be extra careful. And Incoukd challenge it - actually appear before the beak and say “hey it’s not my fault”.

So I filled in the form that says “yes I will challenge it, see you in court”

That might my wife said don’t be fucking stupid they have won pay them

So I went back the next day - and guess what - they had after 9 months withdrawn their action against me, no further need to progress, cancelled

I called the court to find out WTF

They had, and do every week, mass spammed the court with hundreds of parking cases, knowing that pretty much everyone would act like my wife pay a couple of hundred quid not to risk their credit record. I mean a county court judgement and you can kiss a mortgage goodbye.

That is simple abuse - an overworked courts system, hundreds probably thousands of rubbish claims that are put simply to strong arm people to pay up with legal threats, and no genuine attempt to filter out cases with merit, or even only look at “repeat offenders”

But is it worth the time of any parliamentarian to take this on (well frankly yes it would be great backbencher cause celeb, but what do I know.

Anyhow there was a point here - there are many many legitimate companies whose ficking business model is based on legal strong arming anyone who makes a minor infraction and that’s ok, but having a scam my business model to fight the scammy business model is bad?

Yes DoNotPay could have stayed on the right side of the line - but then would frankly run out of money. I guess we can only put our Hope in the hands of our elected representatives:-)

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

#112
post #4

> DoNotPay also did not "hire or retain any attorneys" to help verify AI outputs or validate DoNotPay's legal claims. Wow, that's brave. Create a wrapper around ChatGPT, call it a lawyer, and never check the output. $193k fine seems like peanuts. Sometimes I think about where I would be in life if I had no moral or ethical qualms. I'd probably be running a company like this.

> Sometimes I think about where I would be in life if I had no moral or ethical qualms. I'd probably be running a company like this.

I invented smaller variants of deliveroo, airbnb and uber in my mind, around 2008, but I thought no, the only way to make any money would be to exploit people and break laws. honestly, what held me back was more the hassle of lawyers to make it all work. I didn't think I could stomach the effort.

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

#113

Yes, I get it they did a bad thing. But most of what they are setup to fight is people abusing the legal system so it’s not unfair to fight fire with fire surely? As an example I parked my car to drop my daughter off at a party and paid online - but mistyped the little number for the car park and ended up paying for 3 hours parking somewhere across the country. Naturally the private car park tries to charge me 20x th…

In the US, parking and private parking lots are easily one of the scammiest businesses.

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

#114

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.

I have not seen any evidence that AI output can reach quality levels of a human. Any non-trivial code generated by it takes more time to debug than just writing it from scratch. Its "art" is abominably bad and repetitive. Text generated by AI reads like corporate ad copy written by several committees of committees. "Lovecraftian nightmare" best describes its video output. AI voice generation sounds like soulless ripo…

The Dagoth Ur voice generation is shockingly good. I found a youtube channel of Dagoth Ur narrating Lovecraft stories; it's as good as human narration IMHO.

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

#115
post #4

> DoNotPay also did not "hire or retain any attorneys" to help verify AI outputs or validate DoNotPay's legal claims. Wow, that's brave. Create a wrapper around ChatGPT, call it a lawyer, and never check the output. $193k fine seems like peanuts. Sometimes I think about where I would be in life if I had no moral or ethical qualms. I'd probably be running a company like this.

Another Silicon Valley startup looking to get rich quick, following in the footsteps of Uber, Airbnb, DoorDash, WeWork...etc, which have all played in the legal grey areas

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

#116
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your world, it seems the leftists have it figured out. The purpose of a business is always to maximize profit. EDIT: yeah, yeah, I hear you. You can survive on VC money, and maximize share price instead of focusing on profit. You can also be a small business owned by good people just trying to make a living, but then you still have to not get drowned out by more ruthless competition. The purpose of a business is n…

It's funny: the profit thing keeps being parroted here of all places, Y Combinator, when we know all too well that there are scads of businesses, especially today, that are bleeding millions and hemorrhaging cash, just to disrupt an industry sector, just to amass assets/user data, or just to amass a customer base and get sold off. So no, profit is not a universal motive. But it's a popular one; if you have a conventi…

[deleted]

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

#118
post #104
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they're just another startup playing the growth hacking game When is humanity going to start seeing some patches against these exploits? Is common sense still in beta?

Human lifespan is too short

Yep, need some way to image each new brain that comes online with some basics so it's not starting from 0 each time (and what basics to include would be a battle for the ages)

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

#120
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DoNotPay predates GPT by quite a bit -- it used to be pretty positively received on HN e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13822289

> it used to be pretty positively received on HN Doesn’t that call into question the decision making of folks on HN rather than being a positive view of the product?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN