8 ms·

Joshua should have hired his own lawyer. IANAL, but, my argument here is that the defendant is proceeding pro se (representing themselves), and utilizing a _to

by dossy 4y ago

Joshua should have hired his own lawyer. IANAL, but, my argument here is that the defendant is proceeding pro se (representing themselves), and utilizing a _tool_ to assist in researching their defense. Joshua and DoNotPay are _not_ practicing law nor providing a legal service (make sure to have plenty of disclaimers to this effect), but are merely providing a resource and a tool for individuals who are proceeding pro se. Of course, the failure of the legal system is that being right doesn't guarantee you win, and even if you win, you can wind up bankrupt from the expense of defending yourself. It is truly sad when violence is used to stifle progress.

tzs 4y ago
> IANAL, but, my argument here is that the defendant is proceeding pro se (representing themselves), and utilizing a _tool_ to assist in researching their defense. Nope. From the article: > Here's how it was supposed to work: The person challenging a speeding ticket would wear smart glasses that both record court proceedings and dictate responses into the defendant's ear from a small speaker. The system was powered by a few leading AI text generators, including ChatGPT and DaVinci. That's not assisting the defendant in their research. The AI is doing the research and presenting it to the defendant, during their trial when they won't have adequate time to review it. The defendant's role will just be to mindlessly repeat what the AI says.
- nullish_signal 4y ago
  I'm actually very intrigued by the Fine Print of "whatever the AI says" Perhaps the best move is instead to act as Legal Counsel. Allow the Defendant their Free Speech, with AI merely Advising. But it's certainly a more Spectacular Performance if it's 100% AI, which I worry the company is more focused on for Advertisement. I mean - offering $1 Million to enjoin their AI to a Supreme Court case? I imagine Dr. Evil from Austin Powers, pinkie to his lips, Clueless to the Current Value of $1 Billion and $1 Million and laughed out of the room, but now - "I demand.... The Supreme Court!" Pessimism Aside, I am glad that so many people have been helped by DoNotPay, and it seems they will continue to do right by their existing customers.

by dossy 4y ago

tzs 4y ago

> IANAL, but, my argument here is that the defendant is proceeding pro se (representing themselves), and utilizing a _tool_ to assist in researching their defense. Nope. From the article: > Here's how it was supposed to work: The person challenging a speeding ticket would wear smart glasses that both record court proceedings and dictate responses into the defendant's ear from a small speaker. The system was powered by a few leading AI text generators, including ChatGPT and DaVinci. That's not assisting the defendant in their research. The AI is doing the research and presenting it to the defendant, during their trial when they won't have adequate time to review it. The defendant's role will just be to mindlessly repeat what the AI says.

nullish_signal 4y ago
I'm actually very intrigued by the Fine Print of "whatever the AI says" Perhaps the best move is instead to act as Legal Counsel. Allow the Defendant their Free Speech, with AI merely Advising. But it's certainly a more Spectacular Performance if it's 100% AI, which I worry the company is more focused on for Advertisement. I mean - offering $1 Million to enjoin their AI to a Supreme Court case? I imagine Dr. Evil from Austin Powers, pinkie to his lips, Clueless to the Current Value of $1 Billion and $1 Million and laughed out of the room, but now - "I demand.... The Supreme Court!" Pessimism Aside, I am glad that so many people have been helped by DoNotPay, and it seems they will continue to do right by their existing customers.