A 19-year-old made a free robot lawyer that has appealed $3 million in parking tickets

[Guest Kloaked]

Original Article: http://www.businessinsider.com/joshua-browder-bot-for-parking-tickets-2016-2?op=1

 

When I saw this title, I thought to myself "If I made a robot lawyer, I would get it to do more than just appeal parking tickets."

 

But actually, this is a neat thing to put on a resume, especially at 19.

 

 

Quote

 

Hiring a lawyer for a parking-ticket appeal is not only a headache, but it can also cost more than the ticket itself. Depending on the case and the lawyer, an appeal — a legal process where you argue out of paying the fine — can cost between $400 to $900.

 

But with the help of a robot made by British programmer Joshua Browder, 19, it costs nothing. Browder's bot handles questions about parking-ticket appeals in the UK. Since launching in late 2015, it has successfully appealed $3 million worth of tickets.

 

 

 

Yes, the 19 year old has made this bot do work for free.

 

How does it work?

 

 

Quote

 

Once you sign in, a chat screen pops up. To learn about your case, the bot asks questions like "Were you the one driving?" and "Was it hard to understand the parking signs?" It then spits out an appeal letter, which you mail to the court. If the robot is completely confused, it tells you how to contact Browder directly.

 

The site is still in beta, and the full version will launch this spring, Browder, a Stanford University freshman, tells Tech Insider.

 

Since laws are publicly available, bots can automate some of the simple tasks that human lawyers have had to do for centuries. Browder's isn't even the first lawyer bot. The startup Acadmx's bot creates perfectly formatted legal briefs. The company Lex Machina does data mining on judges' records and makes predictions on what they will do in the future.

 

Beyond parking tickets, Browder's bot can also help with delayed or canceled flights and payment-protection insurance (PPI) claims. Although the bot can only help file claims on simple legal issues — it can't physically argue a case in front of a judge — it can save users a lot of money.

 

 

 

 

So can these bots actually replace lawyers? A DC attorney says no. At least that's what the law says for now.

 

 

Quote

 

But are bots like these the same as hiring a lawyer?

 

It depends on whether they cross the ethical line of giving subjective advice, says Bradley Moss, a DC attorney who specializes in national security. If the bot were to answer subjective questions, then that would be viewed as practicing law, which only humans can legally do.

 

 

 

The whole article is an interesting read.

 

I personally think this is slightly amusing, as this is just some simple bot that does the mundane tasks that lawyers usually handle. The bot's creator has a scope of eventually aiding in flight scheduling, insurance, and so on. This guy is going places if this works out in the end.

 

What a time to be alive.

[Beskamir]

Hurray! We (programmers) are replacing more jobs. Can't wait to show this to my friends that want to become lawyers...

[branden_lucero]

so when i can i get me a bot that will cook for me. 

[Guest Kloaked]

1 minute ago, branden_lucero said:

so when i can i get me a bot that will cook for me. 

When you get married.

 

 

I'm kidding. Women are people too.

[Oshino Shinobu]

Well.. I can see this guy making a lot of money at some point. Even just a law firm buying the licensing to the program could get him millions. 

[AresKrieger]

Just now, ElfFriend said:

Hurray! We (programmers) are replacing more jobs. Can't wait to show this to my friends that want to become lawyers...

Yep, which is why I went into electrical engineering, job security since I will be making programs and gadgets that steal jobs, rather than losing my own.

[branden_lucero]

Just now, Kloaked said:

When you get married.

 

 

I'm kidding. Women are people too.

*shivers.* 

[Smooth Bunz]

So where does one go to get/talk to this robot? I have a speeding ticket I don't wanna pay  

[Maslofski]

3 hours ago, Kloaked said:

When you get married.

 

 

I'm kidding. Women are people too.

your avatar is winking, so i must assume you're revoking your revoke

[RexinOridle]

So where is the link to the robot lawyer?

[NateGSR117]

That pretty neat! I wish I could do that 

[Yog]

You know, I've looked at the bar exam before and it's just applying memorized law (and case law) to the situation at hand. It seemed really simple...just takes a lot of time to memorize the convoluted legal system...perfect for a bot. I'm not at all surprised someone has taken this first step towards making lawyers obsolete.

[Vivilacqua1]

pretty interesting, seeing as I got a parking ticked earlier today. But that's totally my fault, it was the only place left to park, and $33 ain't too bad.

[zacRupnow]

13 hours ago, Kloaked said:

So can these bots actually replace lawyers? A DC attorney says no. At least that's what the law says for now.

Of course they will say no, it threatens their job and some of their clients (criminal defense in particular).

[Trik'Stari]

I would love to see lawyers replaced completely by robots.

[IAcKI]

Couldn't see it replacing Lawyers. They're not just about knowing the law. This if anything will make their job easier however will result in less billable hours I assume?

[Centurius]

21 hours ago, ElfFriend said:

Hurray! We (programmers) are replacing more jobs. Can't wait to show this to my friends that want to become lawyers...

Parking tickets are still very far from being able to handle something like a capital murder trial or any of the hundreds of other complicated legal matters lawyers handle.

[Guest Kloaked]

8 hours ago, zacRupnow said:

Of course they will say no, it threatens their job and some of their clients (criminal defense in particular).

No. 

 

According to the law they cannot outright replace lawyers. There's also more information in the article should you choose to read it. 

 

Has nothing to do with "lel dey scurd 4 der jerbs" 

[zacRupnow]

1 hour ago, Kloaked said:

No. 

 

According to the law they cannot outright replace lawyers. There's also more information in the article should you choose to read it. 

 

Has nothing to do with "lel dey scurd 4 der jerbs" 

Well of course not in any decent amount of time, it's the concept that they may be concerned over now that it's been successfully tested. In 25 years they may face bots taking over the attorney's place but that is true of most jobs.

[Guest Kloaked]

50 minutes ago, zacRupnow said:

Well of course not in any decent amount of time, it's the concept that they may be concerned over now that it's been successfully tested. In 25 years they may face bots taking over the attorney's place but that is true of most jobs.

Go read the article.

[zacRupnow]

4 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Go read the article.

I would suggest the same to you since the article supports exactly what I just said.

Quote

Most of these bots are tools that can rapidly crawl public records and serve up legal information. Bots can't provide full and genuine legal counsel, and it will likely take them several decades to become as sophisticated as humans, says Samuel Woolley

 

[Guest Kloaked]

Just now, zacRupnow said:

I would suggest the same to you since the article supports exactly what I just said.

 

I read the entire thing. I wasn't the one jumping in the thread saying something like the attorney is only saying what they said because their job is being threatened.

 

We read the same article. You assumed they're having an irrational thought about the future of AI, when they were being honest and correct about the why behind bots not currently being able to fulfill an actual lawyer's position.

[zacRupnow]

18 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

I read the entire thing. I wasn't the one jumping in the thread saying something like the attorney is only saying what they said because their job is being threatened.

We read the same article. You assumed they're having an irrational thought about the future of AI, when they were being honest and correct about the why behind bots not currently being able to fulfill an actual lawyer's position.

I read the article and my point stands. I don't think they are having irrational thoughts, I think they are defending the value of their position because the AI is very far off, though when it is closer it will threaten them.

Also I will say that reading the post should provide users sufficient enough information to comment on it and reading the full article should only be needed for pure interest. If the context provided by reading the post is completely different (in this case it is not but you are telling me it is) from the context of the article, then the post needs to be changed.

[Guest Kloaked]

Just now, zacRupnow said:

I read the article and my point stands.

Also I will say that reading the post should provide users sufficient enough information to comment on it and reading the full article should only be needed for pure interest. If the context provided by reading the post is completely different (in this case it is not but you are telling me it is) from the context of the article, then the post needs to be changed.

I did provide enough context. If you make assumptions, that's on you.

 

I also provided the original link to the article which is the whole point in the first place, pumpkin.

[zacRupnow]

14 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

I did provide enough context. If you make assumptions, that's on you.

 

I also provided the original link to the article which is the whole point in the first place, pumpkin.

I did not make assumptions, I said your post had enough context, the link to the source is not the point of posting it is for fact checking that the post isn't made up or for those who want to know more.