Imagine a world where robots have replaced lawyers....

[The Tradition]

Parking tickets are a $20 billion industry in the US, and an undergrad has developed a 'chatbot' program to help make the appeals process easier and more successful.

Joshua Browder, a Stanford University freshman, created a robot to appeal parking tickets in the UK, which has saved drivers $3 million dollars and will soon be available in New York.

The robot lawyer generates documents and answers legal questions, but won’t charge you hundreds of dollars in fees.

‘So far 151,000 people have used my site to appeal parking tickets,’ Browder told DailyMail.

‘When I first started the site, I sent it around to half a dozen family and friends and it is heart-warming that some many people have since used the site to overcome basic legal issues’.

Browder created this technology when he was 18 years old, after receiving a parking ticket on a Saturday and experienced how time consuming the appeals process is.

‘I realized there is a formulated process for appealing tickets, so I wrote a script that does the same thing and I started winning,’ says Browder.

‘I created this robot to help people with legal issues and make it a free service’.

The first step to fighting a parking ticket is to sign into DoNotPay.co.uk, where a chat screen will appear.

The bot will then proceed with questions in order to learn the details of your case such as ‘were you or someone you know driving?’ or ‘was it hard to understand that parking signs?’

After it analyzes your answers, the robot will decide if you qualify for an appeal, if yes, it will generate an appeal letter that can be brought to the courts.

The site, which is only available in the UK at the moment, and has shown a 47 percent success rate, which Browder notes, ‘many parking lawyers have a much lower rate than 47 percent’.

‘I feel that parking tickets are already hurting the elderly and disabled, the most vulnerable in society, the most,’ says Browder.

‘From my experience, parking lawyers are making millions appealing tickets from these groups, a task that can be easily automated for free’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...LION-parking-tickets-set-launch-New-York.html

This man deserves a medal or something.

 

[Huey Grey]

Robots are coming for all jobs. Even President.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Hopefully not all of them. I don't see anytime soon when a robot can take a deposition or first chair a jury trial.

 

[Huey Grey]

Hopefully not all of them. I don't see anytime soon when a robot can take a deposition or first chair a jury trial.

Maybe not act on the jury, but programs are already designing entire legal cases and many lawyers are using that as guides on how to construct their strategies. It may come sooner than we think.

 

[The Tradition]

 

[dandh]

Maybe not act on the jury, but programs are already designing entire legal cases and many lawyers are using that as guides on how to construct their strategies. It may come sooner than we think.

Um... first chair means to act as a lead attorney for one side in a case, not to be a member of the jury.

However, he's likely wrong - at some point everything will be subject to being automated, maybe within the next 100 years or so. Humans will have to find a purpose beyond work.

 

[Huey Grey]

Um... first chair means to act as a lead attorney for one side in a case, not to be a member of the jury.

However, he's likely wrong - at some point everything will be subject to being automated, maybe within the next 100 years or so. Humans will have to find a purpose beyond work.

Well you got me on that part. Wasn't paying attention there.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Um... first chair means to act as a lead attorney for one side in a case, not to be a member of the jury.

However, he's likely wrong - at some point everything will be subject to being automated, maybe within the next 100 years or so. Humans will have to find a purpose beyond work.

So 100 years is now "anytime soon"?

But I get what you're saying. Large advances in the creation of "stock", smart, cheap robots that can learn basic tasks fast - going to hit unskilled workers earners hard. 60 Minutes had a interesting story on this last year too.

 

[dandh]

So 100 years is now "anytime soon"?

But I get what you're saying. Large advances in the creation of "stock", smart, cheap robots that can learn basic tasks fast - going to hit unskilled workers earners hard. 60 Minutes had a interesting story on this last year too.

Well, according to those hyperventilating about global warming.... yeah. But, mostly just saying what you noted - it will happen more quickly than most think.

 

[bhawk24bob]

Um... first chair means to act as a lead attorney for one side in a case, not to be a member of the jury.

However, he's likely wrong - at some point everything will be subject to being automated, maybe within the next 100 years or so. Humans will have to find a purpose beyond work.

I don't think we are even a generation away from that time

 

[theIowaHawk]

This isn't an indictment of lawyers, it is an indictment of lawyers who do extremely routine/easy things and try to monetize it.

The program isn't doing anything groundbreaking, other than the program was created and implemented (which can be groundbreaking), but it isn't doing anything that hasn't been done in many sectors, probably most obviously IT help.

Most people could appeal the tickets discussed in the OP, they don't need a lawyer, no matter how big the billboard they put up is. This is like legalzoom, another area taking advantage of fairly simple filings using rudimentary questions.

Great example would be TurboTax. This doesn't end the necessity or want for accountants or tax preparers, but for many people filing simple things the software is more than enough.

Good for this guy and his program.

 

[ChrisVarick]

So 100 years is now "anytime soon"?

But I get what you're saying. Large advances in the creation of "stock", smart, cheap robots that can learn basic tasks fast - going to hit unskilled workers earners hard. 60 Minutes had a interesting story on this last year too.

In the scope of human history and the profound change to society 100 years is soon. It will not be just low skilled jobs. There will not be many jobs that a computer or artificial intelligence will not be able to do.

 

[The Tradition]

This isn't an indictment of lawyers, it is an indictment of lawyers who do extremely routine/easy things and try to monetize it.

The program isn't doing anything groundbreaking, other than the program was created and implemented (which can be groundbreaking), but it isn't doing anything that hasn't been done in many sectors, probably most obviously IT help.

Most people could appeal the tickets discussed in the OP, they don't need a lawyer, no matter how big the billboard they put up is. This is like legalzoom, another area taking advantage of fairly simple filings using rudimentary questions.

Great example would be TurboTax. This doesn't end the necessity or want for accountants or tax preparers, but for many people filing simple things the software is more than enough.

Good for this guy and his program.

A computer would be able to instantly recognize and analyze any and all court precedents in the context of a situation. It would never forget a bit of testimony or evidence. Presumably, it could out-argue any human lawyer just like computers can now easily defeat human chess masters.

 

[Huey Grey]

A computer would be able to instantly recognize and analyze any and all court precedents in the context of a situation. It would never forget a bit of testimony or evidence. Presumably, it could out-argue any human lawyer just like computers can now easily defeat human chess masters.

Or beat any Jeopardy champion.

 

[theIowaHawk]

A computer would be able to instantly recognize and analyze any and all court precedents in the context of a situation. It would never forget a bit of testimony or evidence. Presumably, it could out-argue any human lawyer just like computers can now easily defeat human chess masters.

This is funny in its misconception of what precedent matters. You believe court works like Law and Order, or say Suits, where one lawyer says, "Well let's look at New York vs. Martensen, it stands for x" then the Judge allows it and blows the case open. Using precedent is easy and is usually taken in to account prior to any real court hearing. Most of what lawyers are doing is crafting new/tangential arguments using other precedent, something a computer would have trouble with.

I get that you don't like lawyers, but a computer can't "out-argue" a lawyer, arguments aren't won with precedent, or, alternatively, when they are there wasn't much need for the precedent to begin with.

Think of it simply. Do you think showing some precedential case wins a divorce containing so many case-specific facts? Of course not.

Comparing it to chess, or jeopardy, where there are "correct" answers demonstrates your misconception of what lawyers do, there are rarely "correct" answers in law. Hard for an HR guy to understand when he steadfastly believes his employer never discriminates and every claimant is a "wallet extractor."

 

[lucas80]

A computer would be able to instantly recognize and analyze any and all court precedents in the context of a situation. It would never forget a bit of testimony or evidence. Presumably, it could out-argue any human lawyer just like computers can now easily defeat human chess masters.

Sure, but would it have the cunning instinct like Mr. Brady to throw a briefcase on the floor causing the plaintiff to turn his head despite a neck brace, thereby proving him to be a fraud?

 

[dandh]

This is funny in its misconception of what precedent matters. You believe court works like Law and Order, or say Suits, where one lawyer says, "Well let's look at New York vs. Martensen, it stands for x" then the Judge allows it and blows the case open. Using precedent is easy and is usually taken in to account prior to any real court hearing. Most of what lawyers are doing is crafting new/tangential arguments using other precedent, something a computer would have trouble with.

I get that you don't like lawyers, but a computer can't "out-argue" a lawyer, arguments aren't won with precedent, or, alternatively, when they are there wasn't much need for the precedent to begin with.

Think of it simply. Do you think showing some precedential case wins a divorce containing so many case-specific facts? Of course not.

Comparing it to chess, or jeopardy, where there are "correct" answers demonstrates your misconception of what lawyers do, there are rarely "correct" answers in law. Hard for an HR guy to understand when he steadfastly believes his employer never discriminates and every claimant is a "wallet extractor."

Computers can't argue better than a human now, but that will happen some day, and sooner than many think. It hasn't been that long ago that people were saying a computer can't out-think a human in chess. It's a matter of time. We need to put a lot of thought into how to address it when it happens.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Computers can't argue better than a human now, but that will happen some day, and sooner than many think. It hasn't been that long ago that people were saying a computer can't out-think a human in chess. It's a matter of time. We need to put a lot of thought into how to address it when it happens.

Turing test has never been "won". Sure, at some point a computer AI will likely fool us in to us believing they are human, at which point the line of distinction may blur to pointlessness. But, we are talking about abstract through, comparison and analogy, not following specific sets of rules. Chess is a game with set rules that can not be broken and everything is turn based. A computer can teach itself to know and understand every possible move and the likely moves of all humans playing it.

I don't think that a computer will ever be able to generate intelligent, abstract thought. What I mean by that is a human taking a legal decision about, say, a simple contract dispute and then apply it to, say, a gender discrimination case. There are no similar rules between the two other than human emotion and comparable logic.

Now we may get there some day, I'm not arrogant enough to believe I know what will happen, but if that day comes the same will be said about every single profession, including doctors, or any other specialist. I, personally, don't think humans will ever be replaced in areas that require abstract logic and comparison and especially those in the arena of emotion.

 

[LifelongHawk]

What a disaster for the legal profession to lose the parking ticket business.

 

[theIowaHawk]

What a disaster for the legal profession to lose the parking ticket business.

.....in the UK.

 

[The Tradition]

.....in the UK.

Story says it's getting ready to launch in New York.

 

[The Tradition]

Most of what lawyers are doing is crafting new/tangential arguments using other precedent, something a computer would have trouble with.

Yeah, like arguing that sexual orientation and gender identity/expression are protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition on sex discrimination. The computer probably couldn't grasp the intent of Congress in 1964 and.... wait, some humans can't grasp that as well. Never mind.

 

[stout1]

Robot lawyers...So we are discussing a world where lawyers have feelings?

 

[hawkssox1]

Parking tickets are a $20 billion industry in the US, and an undergrad has developed a 'chatbot' program to help make the appeals process easier and more successful.

Joshua Browder, a Stanford University freshman, created a robot to appeal parking tickets in the UK, which has saved drivers $3 million dollars and will soon be available in New York.

The robot lawyer generates documents and answers legal questions, but won’t charge you hundreds of dollars in fees.

‘So far 151,000 people have used my site to appeal parking tickets,’ Browder told DailyMail.

‘When I first started the site, I sent it around to half a dozen family and friends and it is heart-warming that some many people have since used the site to overcome basic legal issues’.

Browder created this technology when he was 18 years old, after receiving a parking ticket on a Saturday and experienced how time consuming the appeals process is.

‘I realized there is a formulated process for appealing tickets, so I wrote a script that does the same thing and I started winning,’ says Browder.

‘I created this robot to help people with legal issues and make it a free service’.

The first step to fighting a parking ticket is to sign into DoNotPay.co.uk, where a chat screen will appear.

The bot will then proceed with questions in order to learn the details of your case such as ‘were you or someone you know driving?’ or ‘was it hard to understand that parking signs?’

After it analyzes your answers, the robot will decide if you qualify for an appeal, if yes, it will generate an appeal letter that can be brought to the courts.

The site, which is only available in the UK at the moment, and has shown a 47 percent success rate, which Browder notes, ‘many parking lawyers have a much lower rate than 47 percent’.

‘I feel that parking tickets are already hurting the elderly and disabled, the most vulnerable in society, the most,’ says Browder.

‘From my experience, parking lawyers are making millions appealing tickets from these groups, a task that can be easily automated for free’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...LION-parking-tickets-set-launch-New-York.html

This man deserves a medal or something.

So there is a difference now?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Yeah, like arguing that sexual orientation and gender identity/expression are protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition on sex discrimination. The computer probably couldn't grasp the intent of Congress in 1964 and.... wait, some humans can't grasp that as well. Never mind.

By humans you mean judges who agree with that. But this is exactly what I am suggesting, computer AI won't be able to make that abstract connection.

 

[Brian_Fantana]

One major flaw with a computer arguing a case is the fact that numerous cases on won on the jury's emotions. If it was strictly going by precedent and interpretation of law; I could see a computer being able to formulate a decent legal argument. But being that our system allows for a jury to determine fate in most cases - tough to beat a real person making the argument