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

Post by freejazz » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 10:42 PM UTC

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #52

ziddoap wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing gross or deceptive. They just had to pay a fine for deceptive advertising. The article lists a number of other deceptive and immoral business practices.

I actually used the service in question during that time frame and did not feel deceived by their advertising. In fact, I felt good enough about the experience that I threw them a few bucks after the fact to compensate them for some of the value that they gave me. You read an article about it and 7 years later and are convinced they are crooks.

Post by freejazz » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 10:50 PM UTC

pb7 wrote: post #79

ziddoap wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's a little bit how the law works. If you get sentenced for a conviction, your good deeds will affect the decision. Sometimes people get off entirely based on who they are (e.g. athletes, execs, etc).

Post by BarryMilo » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 10:52 PM UTC

natch wrote: post #130

BarryMilo wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truly one of the worst takes on AI I've seen. What is the purpose of a lawyer? It's not to read the law, the text is free (or should be). It's to advise you, based on the law but also on the immediate, historical and sociopolitical coontext, as well as on their understanding of the characters of all the humans involved. If that gets automated, we are in AGI territory.

Your first paragraph with very small tweaks (laws of physics etc., not law) could also apply to human attendants in elevators. The second paragraph… hard to make a call on that one.

Post by e40 » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 11:00 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #28

sixhobbits wrote: post #6

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 I think people love the idea of DoNotPay: A magical internet machine that saves people money and fights back against evil corporations. Before ChatGPT they were basically mad libs for finding and filling out the right form. Helpful for people who couldn't figure out how to navigate situations by themselves. There is real value in this. However, they've also been runnin…

Post by ec109685 » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 11:12 PM UTC

whoisjuan wrote: post #20

This is a very sneaky ethically gray company. Their app is not only of terrible quality but also full of dark patterns. I'm convinced that any revenue they make comes from people who can't figure out how to cancel. Stay away from it.