Sure if your objective is to minimize your own personal exposure. If your goal is to push toward a world where poor folks aren’t coerced into not contesting their tickets because they can’t afford to go to court or get representation, then maybe it is a good option.
I prefer a world in which people pay a small fine or make their own excuses rather than pay the fine money to a VC-backed startup for access to an LLM to mount a legally unsound defence that ends up getting them into a lot more trouble, yes.
If your goal is to ensure poor folks are pushed towards paying an utterly unaccountable service further fees to escalate legal cases they don't have the knowledge to win so the LPs of Andreesen Horowitz have that bit more growth in their portfolio, I can see how you would think differently.
> goal is to push toward a world where poor folks aren’t coerced into not contesting their tickets
Invest in a company doing this properly and not pushing half-baked frauds into the world. Supervised learning, mock trials. You’re proposing turning those poor folk into Guinea pigs, gambling with their freedom from afar.
This company has been doing this stuff for years. Yes this is a big step forward but it’s not from zero, as you’re suggesting. What makes you think they haven’t been doing mock trials and tons of supervised learning?
And no, I’m not. I don’t think Defendant Zero (or one, or two, or 100) should be people whose lives would be seriously affected by errors. I’m pretty sure DNP doesn’t either.
> What makes you think they haven’t been doing mock trials and tons of supervised learning?
The CEO tweeting they fucked up a default judgement [1]. That not only communicates model failure, but also lack of domain expertise and controls at the organisational level.
This is a false dichotomy that you are making up in order to politically justify your narrative that is otherwise completely made up nonsense best described as legal malpractice.
