Chatbot that overturned 160k parking fines now helping refugees claim asylum(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Chatbot that overturned 160k parking fines now helping refugees claim asylum
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/06/chatbot-donotpay-refugees-claim-asylum-legal-aid
96 comments
I bet you could do a lot of good with an equivalent for eviction proceedings. Most people being evicted don't have representation.
The author may already be working on this. He "decided to expand the bot’s capabilities after DoNotPay began receiving messages about evictions and repossessions." [1] For now the evictions/homelessness feature seems to offer only assistance in applying for public housing.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/11/chatbot-l... [1]
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/11/chatbot-l... [1]
Great to see more chatbots that encourage real world civic action, not just make it easier to order pizza.
I did similar work with Hello.Vote for voter registration, and there are so many offline forms that could be improved with a bit of web/messaging UI. Also see snapfresh.org for a CfA project that helps find places that accept EBT cards.
I did similar work with Hello.Vote for voter registration, and there are so many offline forms that could be improved with a bit of web/messaging UI. Also see snapfresh.org for a CfA project that helps find places that accept EBT cards.
Awesome projects, and I love the civic spirit from which they arise. Any others worth checking out?
Other than chat bots, just making forms and bureaucratic processes more accessible online seems like an arena that still has vast potential for improvement.
Other than chat bots, just making forms and bureaucratic processes more accessible online seems like an arena that still has vast potential for improvement.
Not sure if this is actual "civic action". At least if this is deployed in Europe, it sounds to me more like a deliberate action to completely destroy what remains of the asylum system, which is already struggling both technically and with its political and popular support, due to the large number of applicants who are economic migrants rather than actual refugees.
It may be different with U.S. and Canada, though - things are a bit easier when asylum applicants are not coming over unguarded land borders.
(FWIW, I've assisted an immigrant, an old woman, in composing her complaint to the national courts and ECHR. The system is rigged against honest applicants because of the overload caused by more or less frivolous cases. We lost, too, technically, but she was in too bad shape to be deported so eventually got permission to stay.)
It may be different with U.S. and Canada, though - things are a bit easier when asylum applicants are not coming over unguarded land borders.
(FWIW, I've assisted an immigrant, an old woman, in composing her complaint to the national courts and ECHR. The system is rigged against honest applicants because of the overload caused by more or less frivolous cases. We lost, too, technically, but she was in too bad shape to be deported so eventually got permission to stay.)
Capital flows completely freely between borders, but people can't. I don't really blame anyone for being economic migrants - they're just refugees of a different type.
Of course I don't blame anyone for being an economic migrant. It's a very natural thing to do: search for a better life. It's what I would do. Economic and technical development has progressed in Africa and Asia so that larger numbers of people than ever are able to consider migration. We see that now on the Libyan coast.
However, particularly for European governments, it's now becoming visible that there is a selection to be made: you can have completely open borders, or you can have a welfare state, but you can't have both.
However, particularly for European governments, it's now becoming visible that there is a selection to be made: you can have completely open borders, or you can have a welfare state, but you can't have both.
On the one hand we're told to better ourselves. On the other people are villanised for being economic migrants.
What should happen when there is a conflict between Europeans "bettering themselves" and economic migrants "bettering themselves"? Would you like to see Europeans roll over and ignore their own economic interests? Or do you believe no such conflict is possible?
Does bettering oneself mean the same thing for economic migrants as it does for Europeans, in your mind? I gather from your comment that it means "attaining greater material wealth" for economic migrants. What does it mean for Europeans? Does it mean sharing their material wealth with the less fortunate, at their expense and the expense of their progeny?
Does bettering oneself mean the same thing for economic migrants as it does for Europeans, in your mind? I gather from your comment that it means "attaining greater material wealth" for economic migrants. What does it mean for Europeans? Does it mean sharing their material wealth with the less fortunate, at their expense and the expense of their progeny?
Property and wealth are significant issues, but surely not the only things, and possibly not the most significant things. Safety, security and national and ethnic identity are also important to people. If I live in a country and city where my ethnicity and language are the majority, do I want them to become a minority, and do I want to adapt to culture of newcomers?
Absolutely true - if given the choice, most anyone would rather live in France than war torn Somalia. And given altruism doesn't work particularly well in unstable countries the current system is definitely in a bad state. Borders will have to be closed, as they marginally are now.
That, or we eventually get a dystopia/libertarian dreamworld where borders are replaced by walls around private properties, with a near infinite supply of bodies right at the gates, willing to do almost everything for scraps.
Depressing future scenarios like this make me miss the 1980ies, when popularly feared terrible futures had clearly good solutions ("don't blow up the planet") instead of a choice between two evils.
Depressing future scenarios like this make me miss the 1980ies, when popularly feared terrible futures had clearly good solutions ("don't blow up the planet") instead of a choice between two evils.
> with a near infinite supply of bodies right at the gates, willing to do almost everything for scraps
It does not have to be like that, it is just what you believe.
It does not have to be like that, it is just what you believe.
What is dystopian about having walls around property? It's been that way ever since houses were invented.
[deleted]
You don't have to blame someone for wanting to do something in order to not let them do it.
Yeah, but capital has lobbyists.
Can someone explain how the first chatbot was any better than an interactive form?
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. These tasks instantly seem 10x more daunting, and people feel like they can mess it up easily. Chat interfaces that are thin wrappers over web forms don't provide any actual functional value, but on the basis of these observations I could understand them helping with people's feelings of being "overwhelmed by the system".
It likely gives end users a sense of itemized reward. Rather than showing a vast huge form, or even a progress bar, a chat bot can choose what next to prioritize and present. Not all parts of a form may be applicable, showing what is needed and letting the end user continue at their leisure reduces stress and cognitive overhead. The above is likely why tax companies have been doing better as of late when it comes to completing tax forms.
See - I have the opposite issue, if I'm using a computer I want the information on a webpage or form, if it's not then I want to call and talk to someone - never a machine. If I'm interacting with a system, I want to interact with the system as directly as possible - if I'm interacting with a human, I want to interact with the human as directly as possible. Talking to a machine is a terrible UI in my experience.
Yea I agree, I don't have whatever hangup those people do: what I prefer to use lines up pretty comprehensibly with what's most efficient. I recently took an extended sabbatical and went backpacking and took along a small laptop. Almost universally, people who saw me on it assumed I was working. All of these people were _aware_ that you can do almost anything on a laptop that you can do on a smartphone, but for some reason everyone maps phone to leisure and computers to work. Web seems to fall into a similar category (regardless of the platform); people find it intimidating I guess.
In this case, I'm sure people would prefer answering these questions directly to a person, but that's obviously way higher cost and the point of this system is that you don't have to hire a lawyer. Given that direct human conversation isn't an option, and given the evidently common aversion to normal web interfaces, I'm not particularly surprised that some people might find this valuable.
In this case, I'm sure people would prefer answering these questions directly to a person, but that's obviously way higher cost and the point of this system is that you don't have to hire a lawyer. Given that direct human conversation isn't an option, and given the evidently common aversion to normal web interfaces, I'm not particularly surprised that some people might find this valuable.
So it's like a 90's-esque UI wizard?
before you know it we're going to be using chatrooms with pound signs for each channel and addressing users with @ symbols again
at least I don't have to wait for the mod to +v me. we'll have a chatbot for that
at least I don't have to wait for the mod to +v me. we'll have a chatbot for that
You should check out Matrix[0]. :)
[0] https://matrix.org
[0] https://matrix.org
hm, I wonder if they allow custom URIs, I'd like to change mine Freenode
Exactly. It had less "chatbot" functionality than zork did.
From a tech perspective? Likely none.
From a PR perspective, it would seem huge. I doubt he would have had a write up on the guardian or this much exposure on HN if it was a web form instead of a chat bot.
It should give us all some food for thought when we give consideration on how to market our work.
From a PR perspective, it would seem huge. I doubt he would have had a write up on the guardian or this much exposure on HN if it was a web form instead of a chat bot.
It should give us all some food for thought when we give consideration on how to market our work.
I'll add to what others have replied - there are literally billions of humans who have never filled out a web form, but are comfortable texting. Even tech-savvy people might even prefer doing things that way. Interface style is incredibly important from a user experience perspective and can mean the difference between people using the service and people not using it.
It seems that people are more willing to treat a computer they text with like its a confused person, and work through the troubles. When its a web form though, or an application, they're more likely to act as if the computer is malicious or as if it is mocking them for their ignorance.
Computers are closer to the first mental model than the last---they don't understand the full context of any situation, and when it comes to things like 'understanding' your typical app is programmed to a level less than the average 4 year old.
Computers are closer to the first mental model than the last---they don't understand the full context of any situation, and when it comes to things like 'understanding' your typical app is programmed to a level less than the average 4 year old.
My guess is they did market research and concluded that this interface was somehow the one their target demographic preferred.
If I had an app to write and learned that customers were most likely to buy it with a UI that involved waving the phone and grunting at it, I'd just shrug and build it that way.
If I had an app to write and learned that customers were most likely to buy it with a UI that involved waving the phone and grunting at it, I'd just shrug and build it that way.
Here is how almost every government form in the UK works - long interactive form, mutiple pages of input. Then you get an error message at the end (or, sometimes you submit the form don't get an error message and then receive an error message in the post after 7/14 days). its easy to see how an interactive form that checks for consistency as it goes would win out!
[deleted]
I bet chatbots are more effective than forms. For a form to work, the user has to look around the page and figure out what to do. The chatbot is a back and forth discussion, but there's one place to look, and one question to answer.
It might not be as efficient for a user who has memorized keystrokes to work through, but more effective for first-time users.
It might not be as efficient for a user who has memorized keystrokes to work through, but more effective for first-time users.
What worries me about this is the liability- if you mess up someone's asylum claim, they can die, or suffer extreme harm (e.g. if they're tortured). I'd be interested in seeing how DoNotPay manages their liability.
At what level are they allowed to say something to the effect of "We are trying out very best to make this as useful and applicable to everyone, and in order to help as many people as possible we'd like you to agree to not hold us liable for anything bad that happens. Use us as a resource but we are not fully authoritative."
I'm not sure how close this is to being the practice of law, but lawyers are generally not allowed to contract away malpractice liability. As a lawyer, I feel like it would be beneficial for everyone to allow it in certain cases, like here, but as with everything, there's the potential for abuse.
> The 20-year-old chose Facebook Messenger as a home for the latest incarnation of his robot lawyer because of accessibility. “It works with almost every device, making it accessible to over a billion people,” he said.
That can't be the whole story... A web app could have been at least as accessible. I guess Facebook offers APIs that make developing this kind of application easier than looking for other frameworks or starting from scratch.
That can't be the whole story... A web app could have been at least as accessible. I guess Facebook offers APIs that make developing this kind of application easier than looking for other frameworks or starting from scratch.
Sure, but the dev already has experience with the tech behind a chat bot, and may not have the experience needed to make a web app as easily.
Think about all the "obvious" steps involved (text input, message chain display, page/server communications), the extra features FB messenger has (in-message buttons); then the issues with cleanly displaying on multiple screen sizes; and then you start getting into the fiddly bits like page reloading, form submission failures (say, due to internet disconnect)....
...All of that is done for you. You just need to have the meat of the program (the chat) and you're good to go. Makes a lot of sense, actually.
Think about all the "obvious" steps involved (text input, message chain display, page/server communications), the extra features FB messenger has (in-message buttons); then the issues with cleanly displaying on multiple screen sizes; and then you start getting into the fiddly bits like page reloading, form submission failures (say, due to internet disconnect)....
...All of that is done for you. You just need to have the meat of the program (the chat) and you're good to go. Makes a lot of sense, actually.
The idea of Facebook platform being more accessible than the web is scary to me, but not surprising.
Think about non-tech-savvy users on low-end devices, Facebook is familiar, and there's no responsiveness or web accessibility issues, it can feel faster because Facebook can optimize what is getting downloaded.
It is scary when you extend this out a few years, FB and Google continue to extend the line of what gets consumed on their platform vs what sends people off to a web page.
Your company's branded app is already dead, soon your company's website will be dead.
Think about non-tech-savvy users on low-end devices, Facebook is familiar, and there's no responsiveness or web accessibility issues, it can feel faster because Facebook can optimize what is getting downloaded.
It is scary when you extend this out a few years, FB and Google continue to extend the line of what gets consumed on their platform vs what sends people off to a web page.
Your company's branded app is already dead, soon your company's website will be dead.
This is partly a consequence of phone manufacturers implementing notification APIs for native apps first, and on several years later in browsers.
Although somewhat it's just the nature of the beast that these things take a little while to percolate into each browser.
I don't know how complete support is for web notifications, but eventually it will be a larger number than Facebook installed base. You can sometimes get some features early in apps, but the web browsers eventually cover everyone.
Although somewhat it's just the nature of the beast that these things take a little while to percolate into each browser.
I don't know how complete support is for web notifications, but eventually it will be a larger number than Facebook installed base. You can sometimes get some features early in apps, but the web browsers eventually cover everyone.
Are you using native notifications with websites? I'm really annoyed by the trend of actual websites asking for access to the notification feature when I just want to read an article then leave.
The last thing I need is more notifications.
The last thing I need is more notifications.
You don't get notifications for messaging? Text, email, etc? And phone calls? Those are all things a person might want a web app to handle.
I agree the notification requests in browsers are too obtrusive. In an app store they have the property of only asking when you choose to install. On the web there is no install so the request for access is not in response to any action you took, which is annoying.
I think they should make the notification request block the whole app so that sites only put it up when it's the main thing they want to show.
That aside... the point ia for some apps, like messaging, it is necessary.
I am building an app for selling food, people need to know when to start prepping an order. notifications are a must.
I agree the notification requests in browsers are too obtrusive. In an app store they have the property of only asking when you choose to install. On the web there is no install so the request for access is not in response to any action you took, which is annoying.
I think they should make the notification request block the whole app so that sites only put it up when it's the main thing they want to show.
That aside... the point ia for some apps, like messaging, it is necessary.
I am building an app for selling food, people need to know when to start prepping an order. notifications are a must.
I agree that there are good cases for notification.
It's difficult to find the correct amount of them and it's too easy to get so much of them so that everything important is being lost in the noise.
I don't know what's the correct balance is but for my own usage I'm ok using emails as a notifications spooler and only use native notifications for some specific usages (mostly chat and email clients). What's sure is that I don't care about notifications from my browser.
Btw I can only say for myself, we all have different way to use our tools. If your clients are happy with your notifications, great. I know I would disable them.
I don't know what's the correct balance is but for my own usage I'm ok using emails as a notifications spooler and only use native notifications for some specific usages (mostly chat and email clients). What's sure is that I don't care about notifications from my browser.
Btw I can only say for myself, we all have different way to use our tools. If your clients are happy with your notifications, great. I know I would disable them.
[deleted]
I think one of these processes is a lot easier than the other.
I totally agree. But the common denominator is that both of these battles can be won by deep knowledge of the beurouchratic process.
I believe bots can be better equipped to deal with this than humans in the long run.
I can see that, especially with the language barrier (even if you want to apply for a visa for a foreign spouse, as I did, the paperwork is voluminous and complex), but if your case is anything other than dead-simple you can't really duplicate a lawyer's experience dealing with immigration officers (and judges? I don't know exactly how this process works), knowledge of their particular individual tendencies, etc.
"A good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge"
Sure, but a chatbot is better than a lawyer they can't afford.
razakel(3)
elandybarr(6)
nyolfen(4)
[deleted](1)