1. Amusing title
2. Yea it sounds like a smug and shitty company
But
3. If I get some parking ticket or some small wrong doing I am totally going to consult with GPT before I go ahead and hire a lawyer.
A well trained AI could definitely do the work of most lawyers better than they could.
Lawyers and judges usually just recite rules, previous cases and known loopholes. They are a human search engine and they cost quite a bit.
DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says
161–170 of 218 posts
Re: DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly most lawyers (that I know at least) just keep templates of most common documents and fill in the blanks as needed For basic stuff this is 95% of the end product
And 95% of a doctor's job is just saying "your checkup looks OK Joe, just try to get some exercise and eat more fiber".
And the other 4.99% they do that anyways, in my experience.
Re: DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says
#163> 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.
What is morally or ethically wrong with what they did?
Maybe it's morally or ethically wrong to prosecute them and take their belongings?
Re: DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says
#164Earlier 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?
Ideally the legal system wouldn't be byzantine and prohibitively expensive for mere mortals to engage with.
Is that your experience with traffic tickets?
Re: DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says
#165> 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.
What is morally or ethically wrong with what they did? Maybe it's morally or ethically wrong to prosecute them and take their belongings?
I consider boldly lying about the efficacy of your product in your advertisements to be unethical.
You don't, I guess. That's fine.
Re: DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says
#166There’s a lot of hate for the AI marketing aspects, and that AI isn’t up to par for full lawyer replacements, but they’ve been around with a very working and usable app before way before the AI hype.
Lawyers at huge firms or companies automate the hell out of their legal actions against normal citizens and get things wrong all the time. But it’s okay if they do it because they’re part of the same cabal keeping the legal system afloat. Say what you want negatively about some dark patterns and marketing BS, they’re making legal things affordable to the every day person.
The fine seems fair for overhyped marketing claims, but I hope they keep going and improving.
Re: DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says
#167> 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.
What is morally or ethically wrong with what they did? Maybe it's morally or ethically wrong to prosecute them and take their belongings?
Let's ask a chatbot and find out.
Re: DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says
#168Even before AI, that website has been making overly optimistic claims for many years. It was never clear to me how real or effective it was. The Wikipedia article has more detail but it seems like this is the first time the government has actually called them out? Of course this didn't stop them raising $10m from credulous investors in 2021.
In 2021 a literal discord group raised several million dollars so take that into consideration.
Re: DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
And 95% of a doctor's job is just saying "your checkup looks OK Joe, just try to get some exercise and eat more fiber".
And the other 4.99% they do that anyways, in my experience.
Tbf it's almost always applicable. Get more rest, drink more water, exercise and have a better diet, is universally good advice.
Re: DoNotPay has to pay $193K for falsely touting untested AI lawyer, FTC says
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To your second point, it's very funny how OpenAI seems to have soured the tech crowd on tech. In this particular case, I'm not sour because of OpenAI. I am sour because of deceptive and gross business practices highlighted in the article.
It worked as well as any other eighteen dollar a month lawyer back when I tried it in 2017/2018. It was actually free back then I used it the one time and felt grateful enough for the help that I signed up for one cycle and then cancelled (since I didn't have a continued need for it). Nothing gross or deceptive.
> It worked as well as any other eighteen dollar a month lawyer
It wasn't an eighteen dollar a month lawyer, so your description of it as "any other" is wrong.