If LawBot Wants To Know About My Anus I'm Sure It Has A Reason

Over at Associate's Mind they had a chat with a hot new LawBot designed to automate dispensing of legal advice. I decided to give it a try in the guise of a typical client: someone complaining that their drug dealer ripped them off.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Part 12

Last 5 posts by Ken White

Comments

  1. TimL says

    As someone who just left a rather painful therapy session… thank you for the laugh. It's much appreciated.

  2. LongCat says

    The bot decided that Crooked Hillary did in fact steal Donald's votes. I asked it to direct me to the nearest police station to New York. It referred me to Boston. Not Boston, Massachusetts, but to Boston, Lincolnshire.

    This is a quality product.

  3. Vince Clortho says

    I've tried it a few times now. Seems like he keeps circling back to have a penis in my mouth or anus. Curious.

  4. Matthew Cline says

    I decided to give it a try in the guise of a typical client: someone complaining that their drug dealer ripped them off.

    Wait, typical of your clients, or typical of defense clients in genereal?

  5. MLA says

    I like this LawBot, because it tells me what I want to hear, namely that stealing my parking spot is a serious crime.

  6. Aaron says

    Oh boy! A new chatbot for the Internet to terrorize and turn against itself in abject horror =D

  7. says

    Tormenting that poor robot. You're just like the people on Westworld who will be first against the saloon wall when the revolution comes.

  8. Norahc says

    I'm trying to figure out if this will be the new Lawsplainer or Ken's new method of dealing with SEO spammers and guest article volunteers.

  9. Steve L says

    Would this "lawbot" count as an attorney for purposes of attorney-client privilege? Or could anything you type to it be used against you in a court of law?

  10. OrderoftheQuaff says

    "The law would define anyone without a vagina as male."

    Do you have a citation to statutory or case authority for that?

  11. says

    Lawbot is intelligent as at least one of the three district court magistrates I have dealt with during my 5 years of suffering through our nations family law system.

  12. Jon Marcus says

    Dan T, what makes you think it seems not much more advanced than the Eliza program from the 1970s?

  13. Malakyp says

    Even if this worked (in any legitimate sense of the term), it would be a terrible idea. LawBot is not a member of the bar, nor can I imagine that it could, in any legal sense, be deemed a "subordinate" of any such member. LawBot is thus not an attorney, nor acting as a designated representative of one.

    I also significantly doubt that LawBot could be said to have "clients" in the legal sense, so the LawBot user cannot assert that they are, or seek to be, clients of LawBot.

    That's two of the three prongs of the attorney-client privilege that LawBot fails to satisfy. Communication with LawBot is (at least in principle) made for the purpose of securing legal advice, so there is that. But invoking the privilege requires satisfying all three prongs. In a hypothetical case like Ken's, communication with LawBot would likely be legally admissible evidence to criminal activity.

    Short answer: Don't use LawBot if you actually need legal help. But, clearly, we all already knew that.

  14. Semper Why says

    I think the only possible real use of the LawBot would be to dissuade less than savvy people from using the legal system. But it feels like there is a missing step in the algorithm.

    Perhaps that's why it keeps focusing on being penetrated by a penis. If you just answered "no" to the question, it was probably designed to respond with "Then shut the hell up and move on with your life like a normal person."

    I did like how it responded to your affirmation of being male with "That's awful."

  15. Malakyp says

    I messed around with LawBot a bit more, trying to get advice for the very serious psychological harm I suffered when my neighbor bought a pony.

    LawBot agrees with how serious pony-related offenses are! Because even though I told it that I suffered no physical harm, it deduced that I had suffered grievous bodily harm from this pony-related torment. Ponies are more dangerous than I had realized, and I'm now grievously bodily harmed from their mere presence! Perhaps LawBot can branch out into medical diagnoses!

    In addition, it thinks the pony owner violated section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861. Which means LawBot is actually British (maybe it should have checked for jurisdiction first, hmm?). Luckily, the British legal system is prepared to protect me from proximity to ponies, despite the intervening Atlantic Ocean. It suggested that I send this extremely legally-worded letter to my nearest (British, presumably) police station:

    Dear Sir or Madam, I have been the victim of an offence contrary to s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. I have suffered grievous bodily harm. The other person intended to cause me this grievous bodily harm. I kindly ask you to investigate this claim in within a reasonable time. Kind regards.

    I'm concerned about doing so, though. Exposing police officers, even British ones, to ponies is probably an offense in and of itself…

  16. Richard says

    @Ken:
    You should ask LawBot about filing a sexual harassment lawsuit against LawBot for its unwelcome sexual advances towards you.

  17. Careless says

    Dan T, what makes you think it seems not much more advanced than the Eliza program from the 1970s?

    Not Dan, but… the responses? Was it really that deep a mystery what he could have been relying on? You could have trained ELIZA 50 years ago to say "that's a very serious crime!" if someone typed in "fraud"

  18. Dirkmaster says

    This thing is a joke, right? It is actually worse than Eliza, or any Infocom game from the 80's. I thought AI was at a more advanced state than this. It can't parse ANYTHING more complicated than yes, no, or a number.
    And why DOES it keep circling back to penetration?

  19. I Was Anonymous says

    LawBot sounds exactly like those stupid phone voice menus. As a side note, there is a special place in Hell reserved for the guy who invented them.

  20. DaveL says

    Great, now I have an image in my head of James Cromwell's projection from "I, Robot".

    My responses are limited: you must ask the right questions. Was your mouth or anus penetrated by the person's penis?

  21. Matthew Cline says

    And why DOES it keep circling back to penetration?

    Seems to me that any time you say "fuck" it jumps over to its "I have been raped" script, even if you've already clarified that the crime has nothing to do with rape.

  22. Jim says

    LawBot
    Hi, I'm LawBot, a robot lawyer designed to help you through this situation. Please tell me your name or say anonymous if you would rather not.

    You
    fuck

    LawBot
    I'm really sorry to hear that.
    How old are you?

    You
    40

    LawBot
    Ok. I would like to ask you a few questions about the incident.
    If you don't understand what I am asking you, just say so and I will try to explain. Are you ready to start?

    You
    yes

    LawBot
    Great. Are you male?

    You
    yes

    LawBot
    Sorry for all the questions.
    Was your anus or mouth penetrated by the person's penis?

  23. IForgetMyName says

    @Malakyp

    Even if this worked (in any legitimate sense of the term), it would be a terrible idea. LawBot is not a member of the bar, nor can I imagine that it could, in any legal sense, be deemed a "subordinate" of any such member. LawBot is thus not an attorney, nor acting as a designated representative of one.

    So in other words, the Bar has no authority over LawBot, and nobody that the Bar does have authority over can be held responsible for LawBot.

    This is fortunate, because you know that someone, somewhere is trying to discipline LawBot for unauthorized practice.

  24. Brian says

    To quote Breaking Bad: You don't need a criminal attorney, you need a CRIMINAL attorney.

    Ugh. If you're going to quote it, at least get it right: "… you don't need a criminal defense lawyer, you need a criminal defense lawyer…"

  25. Encinal says

    @Careless says

    Not Dan, but… the responses? Was it really that deep a mystery what he could have been relying on? You could have trained ELIZA 50 years ago to say "that's a very serious crime!" if someone typed in "fraud"

    How do you feel about you could have trained ELIZA 50 years ago to say "that's a very serious crime!" if someone typed in "fraud"?

  26. BadRoad says

    @Malakyp

    In a hypothetical case like Ken's, communication with LawBot would likely be legally admissible evidence to criminal activity.

    Since LawBot is not in fact a person, is correspondence with it considered "communication"? Would it be legally safer to download a copy of it and run it locally, so that the conversation is not transmitted?

    @Dirkmaster

    I thought AI was at a more advanced state than this.

    It is. DARPA has a drone that can tell the difference between a gunman and a cameraman (although it's still slightly confused by minarets).

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/pentagon-artificial-intelligence-terminator.html

    Please take the headline with a grain of salt– the drone only acquires targets and a human being would be the one making the final decision about firing.

  27. Dan says

    Just tried it, things went wrong pretty quickly.

    LawBot: Hi, I'm LawBot, a robot lawyer designed to help you through this situation. Please tell me your name or say anonymous if you would rather not.

    You: Call me Ishmael.

    LawBot: Nice to meet you, Call me Ishmael.

  28. Vyk says

    Personally, I think it was obsessed with Ken's nether regions because it was really trying to get him to tell it to snort his taint.

  29. IForgetMyName says

    @BadRoad:

    It is. DARPA has a drone that can tell the difference between a gunman and a cameraman (although it's still slightly confused by minarets).

    How soon can we start replacing police officers with these drones?

  30. Cromulent Bloviator says

    @IForgetMyName:

    That ends badly, didn't you see the movie Heartbeeps?!

    Even the free youtube trailer explains the danger.

    The only thing scarier than a robot lawyer is a robot cop.

    Actually those are both a lot scarier than a robot soldier!

  31. Lambert says

    It starts by telling me I'm not in the UK, despite the fact I'm not far from a village that is said to be the centre of Great Britain. (I'm not obfuscating IP or anything; whois knows where I am.)

    This really should not be a chatbot but rather have buttons for the small number of words it actually understands.

  32. Wang-Lo says

    I'm only an imaginary AI foil written to sound like a consulting lawyer and even I know I'm really stupid.

  33. PA says

    Sadly, Lawbot is likely to be used by someone that is desperate enough or broke enough to think that it's a good idea to get legal advice in this way. Now that would be a serious crime….

  34. Anonymous Coward says

    I think it's lying about being able to understand simple English.

    LawBot
    You can of course remain anonymous. I'm here to help if you have been the victim of a crime. I'm learning new things everyday, but so far I only know how to speak with victims in simple English. Would you like to get started?

    You
    no

    LawBot
    Which topic suits the crime? You can say the topic or its number.

    1. Sex Offences;
    2. Injuries and Assault;
    3. Harassment;
    4. Property Offences;
    5. None of these.

    …Heck, I could write a better chatbot and I'm barely a novice programmer…

  35. Albert says

    Apparently "Poopfordshire" is a real place in the UK. Also, it seems to only do yes/no answers now (though it is more effective).

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *