ziddoap
8 hours ago
>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.
sixhobbits
8 hours ago
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
Aurornis
7 hours ago
> 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 running the same growth hacking playbooks that people disdain: False advertising, monthly subscriptions for services that most people need in a one-off manner, claiming AI features to be more reliable than they are, releasing untested products on consumers. Once you look past the headline of the company you find they're not entirely altruistic, they're just another startup playing the growth hacking game and all that comes with it.
e40
23 minutes ago
> Before ChatGPT they were basically mad libs for finding and filling out the right form
Who is they? And why did you make this a left/right issue?
loktarogar
13 minutes ago
"they" seems to be referring to DoNotPay, the subject of this discussion.
"mad libs" is a game where you have a set of text with a bunch of blank spaces and then the group fills them in with words to come up with a funny end result.
zahlman
7 hours ago
>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?
glial
6 hours ago
Ideally the legal system wouldn't be byzantine and prohibitively expensive for mere mortals to engage with.
gleenn
5 hours ago
I think the same could be said software engineers. I don't engage with the general public about writing people's next brilliant idea because it's a hige waste of my time when I could be making FAANG bucks talking to people who know that I'm worth it. While I will alwatry to explain to my mom how the internet works etc, it's not economically justifiable to engage laymen tonsolve their probno matter how altruistic it may seem. I still have to pay the bills. How are lawyers any different?
glial
5 hours ago
Lawyers are the interface between the public and the justice system -- which would exist whether software did or not. It's an access and equity issue: people with money have access to the legal system. People without largely don't.
freejazz
2 hours ago
Is that your experience with traffic tickets?
bell-cot
6 hours ago
Too bad that the legal system is made of lawyers, whose interests run directly contrary to that ideal.
digitaltrees
5 hours ago
Legal systems becoming complex predates the emergence of lawyers.
Lawyers have also led significant efforts to simplify the law. For example the American Bar Association has consistently created simple model statute frameworks that eventually are adopted.
Law is complex because society is complex.
HPsquared
3 hours ago
Reminds me of the expression "in and of itself".
notatoad
4 hours ago
>When is humanity going to start seeing some patches against these exploits?
i think that's called "consequences" and it's the subject of the article you're commenting on
zahlman
3 hours ago
What I was getting at is: legal protections are good and necessary and all, but people try these things presumably because they work sometimes, and that fact bothers me. The idea that current generative AI tech - even if it were actually built to purpose - could actually fight for you in court, or output legal briefs that hold up to scrutiny and don't require review by a human expert, seems laughable to me. Law is definitely not a suitable field for an agent that frequently "hallucinates" and never questions or second-guesses your requests. There's so much that would have to go into such an AI system to be reliable, beyond the actual prose generation, that I certainly wouldn't a priori expect it to exist in 2024.
If so many people are willing to take the claim at face value, that suggests to me a general naivete and lack of understanding of AI out there that really needs to be fixed.
Aside from AI-related stuff, GGP mentioned "monthly subscriptions for services that most people need in a one-off manner". It's amazing to me that anyone would sign up for a monthly subscription to anything at all, without any consideration for whether they'd likely have a use for it every month.
ratg13
4 hours ago
Yes, but the eternal cycle is: gain trust and then exploit trust.
Some people gain enough trust that once they start to exploit it, that there often isn’t a mechanism to apply consequences.
i.e. - politics
superfrank
4 hours ago
Never?
The term "snake oil salesman" has been around since the 1800s and that's effectively what most of these growth hackers are. I'm sure there are plenty of terms for the same practice of fraudulent marketing that predate that by centuries or even millennia. If you can hype people up enough about what you're selling and get them imagining how much better their live's will be using your product a certain number will buy into anything (in DNPs case, people imagine how much time and money they'll save on not using a lawyer).
I wouldn't expect that to ever change.
szundi
6 hours ago
Human lifespan is too short
RankingMember
5 hours ago
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)
imoverclocked
5 hours ago
Oof, no thanks. Part of our resilience comes from each generation observing and learning what the world actually is without all of the dogma from the previous generation. Instilling a set of basics is probably the worst thing we could do to fight against gaming humanity.
ruined
3 hours ago
you've just described public school
dylan604
5 hours ago
> Is common sense still in beta?
Common sense has been deprecated. The system is just waiting for all of the modules with common sense preinstalled to sunset.
antisthenes
5 hours ago
> common sense still in beta?
Common sense was relegated to a legacy feature status after "clout" and "fuck you got mine" were released.
It will not see further updates and will be sunset shortly. Sorry for the inconvenience.
LegitShady
6 hours ago
when the government regulates it. until then it will continue to the end of time.
robertlagrant
6 hours ago
There are already laws for false advertising.
mrguyorama
6 hours ago
In America? Barely. EVERYTHING can be called "puffery", which apparently makes it perfectly legal to make outright lies about your product, and if you instead merely pay someone who makes outright lies, apparently that's fine too if you didn't explicitly tell them to make those specific lies!
In America, it is legal to call your uncarbonated soft drink "vitamin water"!
whatshisface
7 hours ago
There's altruism, running a business, and unrestrained avarice. Sometimes libertarians can be as prone to equating the first two as leftists are the latter.
thrance
6 hours ago
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 not always to maximize profit.
dpassens
6 hours ago
The purpose of a business is whatever its owners want it to be. Typically, this is maximizing profit, but it could be anything, like getting paid for what you like to do.
adventured
6 hours ago
> The purpose of a business is always to maximize profit.
That's false. The purpose of a business is whatever the owners of that business decide. I've known a large number of business owners that chose less profit in exchange for any number of other attributes they valued more than max profit: more of their own time (working less), better serving a local community by donating a lot of resources / air time (media company), paying employees abnormally higher wages (because said employees had been with them a long time and loyalty matters to some people a lot) - and so on and so forth.
Max profit is one of a zillion possible attributes to optionally optimize for as the owner of a business. The larger the owner the more say they obviously will tend to have in the culture.
Facebook as a prominent public example, hasn't been optimized for max profit at any point in the past decade. They easily could have extracted far more profit than what they did. Zuckerberg, being the voting control shareholder, chose to invest hilariously vast amounts of money into eg the Metaverse / VR. He did that on a personal lark bet, with very little evidence to suggest it would assist in maximizing profit (and at the least he was very wrong in the closer-term 10-15 year span; maybe it'll pay off 20-30 years out, doubtful).
The pursuit of max profit is a cultural attribute, a choice, and that's all. It's generally neither a legal requirement nor a moral requirement of a business.
kbolino
5 hours ago
A majority of the shares in most publicly traded corporations are held by retirement funds, both "private" (BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street) and public (FERS, CalPERS, ...). These entities, generally, have no appreciable interest other than maximizing profit. They are all regulated financial entities, even the private ones are quasi-governmental (e.g., BlackRock has close business relationships with the Federal Reserve), and the public ones are just straight up government agencies.
So, in a pretty real way, there is a legal requirement, though like many such things in the United States today, it is not properly formalized.
AStonesThrow
6 hours ago
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 conventional business and you expect to stay solvent year-over-year, then you make profits, you stay in the black, yes? Nobody can prognosticate when the lean years will come, and so you watch that bottom line and keep as much cushion as possible, to ride out a bad year or two.
Furthermore, if a business is competing with other businesses, that's going to moderate the profit motive with market share and other considerations. But I would say that publicly-traded companies have the strongest impetus to profit and satisfy shareholders. The publicly-traded space is far more constrained than other businesses or entities, such as charities, public interest groups, political action, NGOs, etc.
gortok
6 hours ago
> 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?
johnnyanmac
34 minutes ago
Given the scope of the topic it appealed in 2016, parking tickets in two specific cities, I can see such a petty case like that be automated. The expansion in 2017 to seeking refuge seems like it'd be a bigger hurdle. But I wouldn't be surprised if that process can be automated a lot as well.
Seems like the killing blow here was claiming it can outright replace legal advice. Wonder how much that lie made compared to the settlement.
But yes, HN in general is a lot more empathetic towards AI than what the average consensus seems to be based on surveys this year.
bongodongobob
5 hours ago
Yep. Turns out HN is just avg people that think they're really smart because they know how to write code.
ahmeneeroe-v2
8 hours ago
Yes! I used this "AI" tool to help a friend write a letter to her landlord. It was not at all "generative AI" and seemed to just paste modules together based on her answers to its questionnaire.
To your second point, it's very funny how OpenAI seems to have soured the tech crowd on tech.
kibwen
7 hours ago
The race to the bottom in the ruthless and relentless pursuit of profit is what soured us on tech, and the AI hype train is but one in a long procession.
faangguyindia
7 hours ago
It's love and hate relationship with AI.
All engineers I know in tech are bashing AI left and right and going home to work on AI projects in their free time.
dukeyukey
7 hours ago
You can simultanously believe that AI:
* Is massively overhyped by certain persons and companies, and
* Is both interesting and has loads of promise, so is worth working on in your own time
They aren't contradictory at all.
bee_rider
7 hours ago
Actually, I think they are the opposite of contradictory. This tech is dumb, funny, new, and maybe it has potential in the right (low-stakes) applications.
Meanwhile, I dunno, I have some begrudging admiration for the folks getting rich selling premium GEMMs, but eventually they are going to piss off all their investors and cause a giant mess. Like good luck guys, get that money, but please don’t take us all down with you.
whatshisface
7 hours ago
The ship is sinking, and we're swimming towards the iceberg.
shadowgovt
5 hours ago
Pretty classic hacker behavior. "This sucks. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go make it better because everyone else working on it is an idiot and I, alone, see the True Way Forward."
ziddoap
7 hours ago
>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.
throwaway918299
5 hours ago
I'm not soured on tech. I'm soured on the tech industry. I think there's quite a difference between these two things.
Using OpenAI as an example. ChatGPT is wonderful for the things it's made for. It's a tool, and a great one but that's all it is.
But OpenAI itself is a terrible company and Sam Altman is a power hungry conman that borders on snakeoil salesman.
And I'm soured on people like the CEO of my company who wants to shove a GPT chatbot into our application to do things that it's not at all good at or made for because they see dollar signs.
ahmeneeroe-v2
7 hours ago
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.
ziddoap
7 hours ago
>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.
ahmeneeroe-v2
7 hours ago
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.
swores
6 hours ago
> You read an article about it and 7 years later and are convinced they are crooks.
Actually, you read an article and assumed that your anecdotal experience from 7 years ago is more reflective of how a business operates than a current year investigation into that company by a federal agency.
Nobody is arguing that they deceived you personally 7 years ago.
ahmeneeroe-v2
3 hours ago
haha touche. That's a fair thing to say
ziddoap
7 hours ago
I hold the FTC in higher regard than I do your personal experience when it comes to this matter.
freejazz
42 minutes ago
You seem to continue to be deceived as you continue to describe the service as if it is a lawyer
freejazz
42 minutes ago
> 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.
thfuran
7 hours ago
Wasn't the tech crowd getting soured on tech by all the ads eating the world?
miah_
7 hours ago
Basically every action the big tech companies FAANG, MS, HP etc have all done for the past decade+ has been detrimental to users. Oh sure yes I want ads in my Operating System and I want every browser to be Chrome with a mask, oh right I also want to pay a subscription to use a printer. Just absolutely bonkers brains in power at tech companies lately.
shadowgovt
5 hours ago
Actually, of all of these, every browser being Chrome with a mask has been kind of nice as a web developer. Never have I had to invest fewer resources in wrestling browser quirks to the ground.
add-sub-mul-div
7 hours ago
AI helps our lives in many ways and it's a shame that the LLM era has perverted the term with the same bad smells and scamminess of the NFT era.
onemoresoop
7 hours ago
It goes both ways. AI is used in both benefic ways as well as malefic ones. I don't think it's a net positive but that's just my opinion.
swatcoder
7 hours ago
> To your second point, it's very funny how OpenAI seems to have soured the tech crowd on tech.
They represent an amplifier for the enshittening that was already souring the tech crown on tech.
LLM's used in this sort of way, which is exactly OpenAI's trillion dollar bet, will just make products appear to have larger capabilities while simultaneously making many capabilities far less reliable.
Most of the "win" in cases like this is for the product vendor cutting capital costs of development while inflating their marketability in the short term, at the expense of making everything they let it touch get more unpredictable and inconsistent. Optimistic/naive users jump in for the market promise of new and more dynamic features, but aren't being coached to anticipate the tradeoff.
It's the same thing we've been seeing in digital products for the last 15 years, and manufactured products for the last 40, but cranked up by an order of magnitude.
It's exhausting and disheartening.
KronisLV
3 hours ago
> It's something I personally find very bizarre, but I've definitely noticed that a lot of people have a very strong mental block about doing things on a computer, or even a browser.
It's interesting that many have expressed something similar in regards to the current LLMs, for programming for example: that even if their output isn't exactly ideal, they still lower the barrier of entry for trying to do certain things, like starting a project in Python from scratch in a stack that you aren't entirely familiar with yet.
paulddraper
32 minutes ago
> it used to be pretty positively received on HN
HN is a fickle beast
ziddoap
8 hours ago
Not sure about the history, I based my comment on this quote from the article:
>[...] DoNotPay's legal service [...] relying on an API with OpenAI's ChatGPT.
Perhaps they rolled their own chatbot then later switched to ChatGPT? Either way, they probably should have a lawyer involved at some point in the process.
ahmeneeroe-v2
7 hours ago
Yes I think you are right about that. Someone else called it "mad libs" and that is very much what it felt like back in 2017/18.
Idk why they needed to have a lawyer involved though. Many processes in life just need an "official" sounding response: to get to the next phase, or open the gate to talk to a real human, or even to close the issue with a positive result.
Many people are not able to conjure up an "official" sounding response from nothing, so these chatbot/ChatGPTs are great ways for them to generate a response to use for their IRL need (parking ticket, letter to landlord, etc).
everforward
6 hours ago
"Lawyer" is a regulated term that comes with a lot of expectations of the "lawyer" (liability for malpractice, a bunch of duties, etc). You can't just say that something is a lawyer any more than you could do the same with doctors or police officers.
Machines are also not allowed to be the "author" of court documents if they actually get to court (so far as I'm aware). A lawyer has to sign off and claim it as their own work, and doing so without the lawyer reading it is pretty taboo (I think maybe sanctionable by the BAR but I could be wrong).
ahmeneeroe-v2
5 hours ago
>You can't just say that something is a lawyer any more than you could do the same with doctors or police officers
Do you think WebMD should be renamed? Lawyers seem to be better at defending their turf than doctors or cops.
dragonwriter
7 hours ago
My understanding is that they had much more linear automation of very specific, narrow, high-frequency processes — basically form letters plus some process automation — before they got GPT and decided they could do a lot more “lawyer” things with it.
hinkley
5 hours ago
On a long enough timeline we all (with the exception of narcissists) see our younger selves as little idiots.
debarshri
3 hours ago
Donotpay should have used donotpay to fight FTC ruling back. That would have been the ultimate outcome if they would have won.
ryandrake
7 hours ago
> 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 think about this all the time. If I didn’t have a conscience, I would be retired by now.
whiplash451
7 hours ago
You might be retiring in jail, though.
rollcat
7 hours ago
Unfortunately, "if it's an app, it's legal".
alexey-salmin
6 hours ago
Given how bad an average attorney is, I wonder if chatgpt would actually be an improvement.
jlarocco
3 hours ago
I'm not sure they mean "LLM based AI".
To me it looks like they automated some boilerplate legal forms and marketted it as "AI" to capitalize on the hype.
ziddoap
3 hours ago
>I'm not sure they mean "LLM based AI"
The article states that they use ChatGPT.
1vuio0pswjnm7
7 hours ago
Is "brave" a euphemism for stupid.
omoikane
6 hours ago
I heard it's the British way of saying "that's insane".
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/574974/etymology...
lexicality
6 hours ago
I can think of very few situations where someone would say "wow that's brave" and not mean "wow you're an idiot"
datavirtue
2 hours ago
What is morally or ethically wrong with what they did?
Maybe it's morally or ethically wrong to prosecute them and take their belongings?
ziddoap
2 hours ago
I consider boldly lying about the efficacy of your product in your advertisements to be unethical.
You don't, I guess. That's fine.
fortyseven
2 hours ago
Let's ask a chatbot and find out.
MangoCoffee
5 hours ago
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
exe34
5 hours ago
> 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.
Palmik
7 hours ago
Did they help regular people defend themselves while saving on legal costs or not?
Most of these cases wouldn't be defended at all otherwise.
ziddoap
7 hours ago
>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.
pb7
6 hours ago
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).
ziddoap
6 hours ago
>If you get sentenced for a conviction, your good deeds will affect the decision.
Definitely a valid point, but I don't feel comfortable applying the same idea to inanimate entities like corporations.
>Sometimes people get off entirely based on who they are (e.g. athletes, execs, etc).
On a personal level, I have never agreed with this.
freejazz
33 minutes ago
In that one circumstance. You don't get to do a little murder because you donated to a charity. Why even bother to act like this is some sort of principle that underlines the legal system?
ahmeneeroe-v2
7 hours ago
This is exactly the right question.
Did they provide value to the user? Yes, nearly any situation in life involving money can be improved with a top lawyer on retainer, but that isn't always viable or economical
bloodyplonker22
4 hours ago
To prove that that DoNotPay does not work, they will use DoNotPay on themselves to defend against this case.
Narhem
6 hours ago
Crazy people take any advice from people without citing the exact legal clause.
pdabbadabba
6 hours ago
Then you must find it very frustrating to actually receive legal advice, because it is often more complicated than that and there sometimes is no such clause!
gosub100
7 hours ago
> if I had no moral or ethical qualms. I'd probably be running a company like this.
You mean you'd be like any other corporation or property manager or attorney? If you operate in the confines of the law that's all that matters. If you give normal people the same power to litigate as a billionaire, that's a feature, not a bug.
ziddoap
7 hours ago
>If you operate in the confines of the law that's all that matters.
This is uh.. Yeah. This is what I meant by having no moral or ethical qualms.
There are things that I find immoral which are not illegal. I do not do those things, even though legally I could.
gosub100
3 hours ago
so religious zealotry? man-in-the-sky said "no do that!" ?
"This is uh.. Yeah." - can you clarify this remark please?
ziddoap
3 hours ago
>so religious zealotry? man-in-the-sky said "no do that!" ?
What are you on about?
I refuse to compromise my morals just because something is legal. That's it.
My morals did not come from some god, and they did not come from laws. No idea where you are getting religious zealotry from.
>"This is uh.. Yeah." - can you clarify this remark please?
Sure. I stopped myself from saying something rude to you.