Free robot lawyer has a 64% success rate | Hacker News Reader

Free robot lawyer has a 64% success rate

thememo.com

75 pointsollysmit25 comments

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11138419

Perhaps more councils should follow my local council's approach. You get the first 15 minutes free so you can "click and collect":

"Perth is the first city to recognise the 'click and collect'[0] culture and has introduced a 15 minute free parking policy. This only applies to Council-run car parks and on-street parking spaces. A valid ticket must be displayed and can be acquired free of charge by pressing the button on the parking machine." [1]

Then after that they don't gouge you too much when you do have to pay. Their parking attendants aren't too bad either so if you're two or three minutes late they don't immediately slap on a ticket (unless you're doing something idiotic like parking in a bus stop or abusing disabled spaces).

[0]: "Click and collect" being where you order something online to have it reserved or ordered into the nearest convenient high street store (e.g. Argos, Marks and Spencers, etc).

[1]: http://www.pkc.gov.uk/article/3441/Parking-in-Perth-City-Cen...

What does "click and collect" mean?

Order something online then drive into town to collect it.

I think it's a reference to pre-ordering things online and then going to the physical store to collect. You click online, and collect in person. This of course becomes easier if you can park your car close by for a short while, for free.

AI lawyer is overstated... it's more like a questionnaire with immediate results, but hey! It's still in the cloud!

Agreed. But I'm sure the next logical step (after raising money?) will be to make it more intelligent & boost its already impressive 64% success rate.

A questionnaire with results would not be a bad way to describe an initial interaction with a lawyer.

"Did you say yes to these 10 questions? If so, you have a case and we'll proceed. I'll file some paperwork for you."

If the target topic is as small and well-constrained like this one, it's not a far jump to consider this a legal service.

> “I think the people getting parking tickets are the most vulnerable in society,” Browder told VentureBeat this week.

Surely the most vulnerable can't afford cars at all.

Yeah, I thought that was a bit much. I think most people getting parking tickets are assholes who think they're the pretty little snowflake and can take an exception to all the rules everyone else supposed to follow.

But they literally just needed to run in for a second! They couldn't have spent more than five minutes inside!

So put just a dime in the meter..

(I do recognize the sarcasm, of course)

Those already have government programs to assist them making them less vulnerable than people who make enough money to be ineligible for assistance, but not enough to afford to live in an expensive city and pay predatory parking tickets.

There are plenty of very poor people who live in areas where owning a car isn't optional.

Most vulnerable might be a bit hyperbolic because for any given group there's always a group or subgroup that's worse off.

>“I think the people getting parking tickets are the most vulnerable in society,” Browder told VentureBeat this week.

Did I read that correctly, seriously, did I read that correctly, he didn't say that people who get parking tickets are the most vulnerable people in society, right? He didn't. He can't.

Perhaps not the most vulnerable in all senses, but you could make the case that they're the most vulnerable financially. It's no secret that a lot of smaller towns (and some big cities for that matter) balance their books on the backs of their lower income residents via traffic tickets and other such tiny violations. When you're check to check a $50 parking ticket can blow away 1/6 of your biweekly income without breaking a sweat, and for some that's all it takes to put them on the street.

While it's not a guarantee that whomever violated isn't just an entitled clown, I don't think it's a massive logical leap to assume people who live paycheck to paycheck might have a harder time feeding a meter.

Exactly. If you have money you're more likely to park in a garage to avoid the hassle of looking for a spot on the street, or maybe you took a cab or an Uber and didn't need to park to begin with.

Donald Shoup has pointed out how weird it is we tend to price street parking lower than garage parking, generally because only the latter is run by private business.

Street parking is generally closer to where you want to go, and easy to get in and out of (unless the street is extremely busy - I always hated parking on Wilshire in LA, even when I found a spot). Making it as expensive as it needs to be to ensure at least one spot is available would ensure easy access for those who want to quickly run in to a shop, while a garage can continue to serve people who want multi-hour stays and for whom a few minutes entering and exiting is less dissuading.

It seems like a natural consequence of things like this could be a computer program on the other end automatically doing the judging of minor offenses, with an option to appeal to a human for a slight cost.

One way to introduce it could be for the courts to produce standardized forms for extremely common offenses, with the judges expected to simply follow the instructions unless someone files another form for a deeper investigation.

What you're saying pretty much already exists in the UK, to a certain extent.

Automatic speed cameras that trigger sending a penalty notice, with details on how to pay the fine, and how to appeal the charge.

This reminds me of the compu-judge in the game adaptation of Neuromancer: https://youtu.be/5tNMdbq_Z7w?t=1285

I tried it for delayed flight option. I didn't see anything cannot be done without an AI.Also, it does not understand your answers if you write more complicated statements than yes or no. All can be done with simple form based questions. Can it be considered as an AI?

That parking tickets even exist is a sign we grossly undervalue the land cars are parked on. Just price parking to the market and it's a non-issue.

Huh? Surely if parking prices went up, more people would illegally park and tickets would become more prevalent?

I was thinking of overstaying. You make a point, though, regarding non-payment. If I can park for two hours for $4 then presumably I should be able to for 8 hours for $16. We often prevent this, because we underprice parking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com