For the first time, an artificial intelligence-based legal advisor will play the role of a lawyer in an actual court case. Through headsets, artificial intelligence will instruct defendants in court what to say to escape the fines and consequences associated with speeding charges, AI company DoNotPay said in a report originally from New Scientist.
An in-person speeding ticket hearing is scheduled for sometime in February in a U.S. court, DoNotPay founder and CEO Joshua Browder said by phone. However, Browder and the company would not provide any further details of the case to protect the defendant's privacy.
DoNotPay is also unwilling to disclose the specific details of the case, because what they have done is likely to violate the law and agreement of the court. In many countries and jurisdictions around the world, cell phones and internet-connected devices are banned from courtrooms. To get around restrictions on cellphone use, Brand explained that the company relied on the hearing accessibility standard in this particular courtroom, which provides a loophole that allows the use of Apple's AirPods. Asked whether the court would be aware of the assistive role of artificial intelligence during the hearing, Blonde replied: "Definitely not."
The CEO said the company is also working with another U.S.-based defendant on speeding tickets that will go to a zoomed-in trial. In this case, DoNotPay is weighing the use of teleprompters versus synthetic voices, the latter being described as "highly illegal." But he wasn't too worried about the legal ramifications because "at the end of the day, it's just a traffic ticket". Browder doesn't expect courts to punish speeding defendants for AI tutoring, and there's nothing expressly in the law that prohibits AI legal aid. Also, "this is an experiment, and we like to take risks," he added.
As a side note, DoNotPay's program is responsible for any fines incurred in both cases, and the company is compensating the two defendants for their participation in the "experiment." He also explained that the company has trained its artificial intelligence extensively not to lie or deviate from the facts presented, hoping to eliminate the possibility of being charged with perjury in court.
Started in 2015, DoNotPay is a basic chatbot designed to help users with public affairs and legal issues, primarily by using conversational templates. Even in its earliest incarnation, the bot was quite successful, and in less than two years DoNotPay managed to eliminate 160,000 parking tickets in New York and London. The company claims that it has resolved a total of 2 million related cases since its inception. Then, in 2020, with the release of ChatGPT, the company shifted its focus to artificial intelligence and boosted its potential.
Recently, DoNotPay has gained attention for its corporate negotiation tactics. In a video posted on his Twitter account, Blonde demonstrates using a ChatGPT-powered bot to shave $10 off a monthly internet bill. The founder also told New Scientist that he recently reversed $16 worth of bank fees using artificial intelligence and synthetic voice. And these are the types of use cases that Blonde envisions DoNotPay being most applicable to the general public in the near future, though he told New Scientist that his goal is for AI to eventually completely replace some lawyers.
The company already offers tools on its website to create written communications or scripts for those looking to avoid or minimize fines, medical bills, subscriptions or other common clerical hurdles of modern life. For now, though, AI in court is just a "proof of concept to try to encourage courts to embrace the technology and allow people access to justice," he said.
"We help consumers fight corporations, beat bureaucracy, and get them out of parking tickets and refunds from big companies like airlines ... our vision at DoNotPay is Make the law free. But we'll have to wait until the end of February to know if this noble vision is successfully translated into court."
The company will disclose its details after the defendants' Zoom-based and in-person case wraps up.
