Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

"Hey ChatGPT, my NYC landlord is raising my rent by $500, and says I must pay by Monday or leave. What do I do?"

ChatGPT - This is very likely illegal under Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), specifically New York Real Property Law § 226-c (Notice required for rent increases), RPL § 232-a / § 232-b (Month-to-month termination), RPL § 232-c (Fixed-term lease protections), RPAPL § 711 (Legal eviction procedure) and NYC Admin Code § 26-501+ (Rent stabilization). Here's what you should reply with... And here are some city resources you can contact...

ChatGPT now - IDK, pay a lawyer.

So under the guise of "protection" you are taking away the strongest knowledge tool common people have had at their disposal in a generation, probably ever.

View on HN

Lawyers are making laws protecting lawyers. More seriously, I think part of the issue is people take AI responses very seriously, because it is almost always right about non-nuanced material. So even if it has the disclaimer at the end to talk to a professional, they might forgo that if the answer looks professional enough (such as quoting possibly non-existent statutes, etc.). This issue gets compounded if the person who is prompting it doesn't know the material, is accidentally misframing the question, or not giving it key information that completely changes the scenario. Even in your example, what if the person neglected to say that the raise was two months ago, and they already signed a lease agreeing to the raise? Getting into the weeds of topics like law and medicine can be hard, and both have major consequences when an answer is wrong.

For engineering (assuming it means civil engineering), that should already be illegal, unless the person who is using the AI is an engineer. Hopefully people aren't building structures with ChatGPT as their staff engineer.

Their protection, not yours. Hopefully this will draw public backlash just like when they tried to ban Uber and make everybody go back to cabs. Fuck the entire credential cartel based system of societal organization. Burn it to the ground.

They will come for medical advice provided by AI as well. Doctors have been gate keeping that forever and they want you to have to go thru them instead of diagnosing yourself thru AI.

Yes, there are people that will misdiagnose themselves, but I’ve read stories where doctors ignore patients symptoms or wave them off, and ChatGPT helps them find the underlying issue and actually improve their lives. Even if doctors and the medical field can’t handicap AI giving medical advice, I’m sure they are going to make it much harder for patients to get their hands on their own scans and bloodwork.

I know because I've lived it. My other comment on this post:

> I have narcolepsy. It took a dozen or so doctors and years of suffering before I got a correct diagnosis, and even then it was only because I diagnosed myself with Google and then specifically made an appointment with a doctor who specializes in it. Gemini nails it when I put in my symptoms.

Also, I had to vouch for your totally legit comment b/c somebody who doesn't want other people to read it flagged it dead.

as someone who was failed by psychiatry and tried all regular medications AI helped me find an off label treatment for my mood disorder that has had a profoundly life changing experience for me. what they’ll be doing is removing experiences and stories like this where gaps in knowledge allowed psychiatry to fail and AI helped me the find the cutting edge of research to get the treatment i needed desperately!

Doctors carry malpractice insurance.

Same question on Google gets you nyc.gov (the actual source!) with the same answer. That page is also always correct for NYC, instead however correct ChatGPT is, which might be 100%... or might not!

And what then? People read through all of nyc.gov and the entire city/state legal code to find the exact statute that applies to their scenario?

In fact government agencies have set up their own chatbots to help people with situations like these, and like the article says those would be illegal under this law as well.

Was it that hard for you to try the search yourself? The first result was a helpful guide breaking down what to do specific to the scenario you mentioned: https://www.nyc.gov/main/services/rent-increase-guide

Also NYC is in the process of getting rid of that chatbot.

This is not about you or me, it's about the large chunk of New Yorkers (and people in every city) that:

- have no resources for a lawyer

- have limited English skills, and possibly limited literacy in general

- aren't good with computers/internet

- have little understanding of the law

"Oh just browse a complex website" and every other "it works fine for me" scenario doesn't help this class of citizens. A simple chatbot that answers questions does.

Apparently you are either a bot yourself or some AI shill. That page is clearer than most ChatGPT results, the official source, and has translations for dozens of languages. Not to mention "aren't good with computers" already rules out using ChatGPT!

True. But just changing the prompt to include "cite me cases" expands the search to court systems and actual cases. It's pretty useful as a first pass to get a sense for the issues, precedents and laws at stake.

You know some of those "actual cases" are made up, right? Like, famously, lawyers are filing briefs with made-up citations b/c they used LLMs to draft it.

Ah ok so only lawyers get to use AI hallucinations! (Actually, CA has a bill pending that AFAIR requires lawyers to manually verify AI citations... which is a lot narrower and better than what NY is trying here.)

Note: 'Same question on Google gets you' can only reasonably be sure for you and no other person. Answers may vary depending on your location and history information.

This is a strange disclaimer to make specifically about Google when it is even more true for these chatbots.

One of the big dividers that I see between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is the ability to afford legal representation in civil cases.

For criminal cases, there are public defenders, but for civil cases, I don't believe there is any such thing?

If you can afford a lawyer and your opponent can't, there is a lot that you can do to bully your opponent into making it not worth it for them to fight the case.

One of my controversial opinions is that -- if we can enable easy access to AI, then we can give provide much broader access to legal or medical advice. Maybe not the best, maybe not always right, but even if it's average-ish advice, then I think that could often be better than nothing at all.

We can't completely prevent bad people from doing bad things with AI, but I see this as one of the clear ways that we could do some really good things with AI.

I’m sure this is true to some extent, about the lawyers. But also, I wonder (aka I don’t have any data to back this up, it is just based on random stories I’ve heard) to what extent people “I’m right but can’t afford the lawyer time” as a sort of pride maintaining excuse. Or to what extent lawyers use that as a soft-no to reject clients that they don’t think have a strong enough case.

Which isn’t to say the world is fundamentally just. Just, in some case the laws are legitimately stacked in favor of the big guys, or you sign a contract without carefully reading it, etc etc.

In my experience lawyers will tell you very directly when you don't have a good case, or if you do have a good case but it's not worth pursuing it (the most likely scenario). Also, the time that I did pursue my case, it took around $50,000 to the lawyers before I was able to convince the defendant to settle (for a large multiple of that $50K). If the other side had been more stubborn it would have been around $100K to take it to trial. If I hadn't had the money to pay the lawyer I would have been SOL, and most people don't have $50K to spend on an uncertain outcome like that. So “I’m right but can’t afford the lawyer time” is a very real scenario.

That $100k is also on the cheap side. If the other side has a lawyer and a lot of money to burn, they can easily hike that way up. Filing a billion motions that your lawyer has to respond to, deposing everyone you've ever met, going after every document you've ever looked at. The more money someone has, the easier it is to make you spend more money, even if you are right.

Right. My case was a very simple contract dispute with very little discovery and only a couple of people to depose, so I was lucky there. And the other side did have more money than me, but not so much that they could burn several hundred K on it without feeling it.

> So “I’m right but can’t afford the lawyer time” is a very real scenario.

For most cases like the ones we're talking about (NYC unlawful eviction and/or tenant harassment), if you have a good case, you don't have to pay up-front. A lawyer will take it on contingency and get paid by the defendant if you win.

In addition, there are also plenty of free legal resources dedicated to this exact topic as well.

True, but it is only an incredibly narrow subset of legal cases where contingency based lawyers exist. As for non LLM legal resources, they are just fine if you have all day to read them and all of another day to draft the required filings, but most people have jobs.

> As for non LLM legal resources, they are just fine if you have all day to read them and all of another day to draft the required filings, but most people have jobs.

You misunderstand. If you are facing tenant harassment in New York City, there are other avenues for you to resolve it that don't involve engaging a lawyer at all.

> True, but it is only an incredibly narrow subset of legal cases where contingency based lawyers exist.

Not really? If anything, there's a pretty narrow subset of cases where it's not possible to get someone on contingency but it is possible to use an LLM to meaningfully push your case forward without one.

$50k is going to be on the cheap side for any case that ultimately involves the court. Anytime a case goes to trial, you can easily be looking at $1M+.

There's a reason companies keep lawyers on staff. It's a whole lot cheaper to give a lawyer an annual salary than it is to hire out a lawfirm as the standard rates for law-firms are insanely high. On the low end, $150/hour. On the high end, $400. With things like 15 minute minimums (so that one draft response ends up costing $100).

Take a deposition for 3 hours, with 2 lawyers, that'll be $2400.

Not being able to afford a lawyer is no joke.

In house counsel aren't doing trials

Correct, they are handling everything up until the point where you start a trial (including finding the legal firm and spot checking their work).

Doubt that. There's no point of bringing in a litigator on day 1 of a trial save for the fact they are probably a better public speaker. Whatever needed to get done needed to be done well before trial started.

Sure there is, if you can send back a strong response to a challenge, a potential litigant may back down ultimately saving money.

On staff legal council is there to be able to make the call when a more expensive firm should be hired and brought in. There's a lot of BS lawsuits, however, that flow through. For example, every software company that gets big enough will likely get sued for some BS patent infringement. Having on staff legal will be able to make the call of "yeah, you should just give them $10k to go away". That's a lot cheaper than hiring a firm to come in and then tell you "Yeah, you should give them $10k to go away".

Particularly for a business, it takes years before any case gets close to going to trial. Plenty of time for your council to make the determination on when bigger guns should be brought in.

>Sure there is, if you can send back a strong response to a challenge, a potential litigant may back down ultimately saving money.

Do you litigate? Hiring a new attorney to show up day of trial only communicates to the other side that it's clown-city.

>On staff legal council is there to be able to make the call when a more expensive firm should be hired and brought in. There's a lot of BS lawsuits, however, that flow through. For example, every software company that gets big enough will likely get sued for some BS patent infringement. Having on staff legal will be able to make the call of "yeah, you should just give them $10k to go away". That's a lot cheaper than hiring a firm to come in and then tell you "Yeah, you should give them $10k to go away".

Do you litigate? Do you know what's involved to actually get to a trial? Let alone the day of trial? In house is going to take depositions and brief summary judgment? In house is going to prepare the pre trial order? Get proposed jury instructions? Again, do you litigate?

>Particularly for a business, it takes years before any case gets close to going to trial. Plenty of time for your council to make the determination on when bigger guns should be brought in.

You said, in particular, "up until the point where you start a trial."

> You said, in particular, "up until the point where you start a trial."

That was wrong of me to say.

My intent was more to communicate that there's a lot of legal work before a case gets close to going to trial or even discovery which an in-house attorney can and will handle. Including evaluating if a case needs the big guns called in.

No, I don't litigate.

For what it's worth (to you), I've only ever dealt with one in-house litigation team and they were monsters. Typically, once a suit is filed, you get someone serious on it. It'd be pretty crazy to have a non-litigator draft responsive pleadings like an answer or a motion to dismiss.

IMO, this screams the need for both tort reforms and something like a nationalized representation system.

Perhaps something like a standard set of filings for a given case. Maybe automated rulings on less consequential motions. Maybe some sort of hard limits on the amount of billable hours a law-firm can work on a case. Anti-slapp laws for sure.

Like, for example, maybe we allow a total of 100 billable hours worked, with an additional 10 billable hours allowed per appeal. The goal there being that you force lawyers and lawfirms to actually focus on the most important aspects of a case and not waste everyone's time and money filling motions for stuff you are allowed to get, but ultimately has 1% impact on the case. Perhaps you could even carve out a "if both sides agree, then you can extend the billable hours". You could also have penalties for a side that doesn't respond. For example, if you depose them and they fail to follow the orders then they lose billable hours while you get them credited back.

The main goal here being avoiding both wasting a bunch of court time on a case but also stopping a rich person that can afford an army of lawyers from using that advantage to drive their opponent bankrupt with a sea of minor motions.

"Hey ChatGPT, my NYC landlord is raising my rent by $500, and says I must pay by Monday or leave. What do I do?"

ChatGPT - "Wow that sounds illegal >:( You're absolutely right to be upset and mad. I searched around reddit for other users with similar problems and they suggested jamming all the taps open and claiming squatters rights."

I can put this on my shelf for legislation with unintended negative side effects. (I don't have a shelf for legislation without unintended negative side effects; there aren't any)

That search does not in the slightest require AI to get a reasonable answer for. And, no matter what, the answer from a computer isn't going to stop the landlord from doing whatever comes next.

Agreed. This law would have awful outcomes.

Small note, saying "common people" in this way comes off at best anachronistic, at worst a little stuck up. Like a benevolent lord considering the feeble minds of the peasantry.

Commonality stresses something qualitative, rather than quantitative or statistical, which is probably what you meant. Just say "most"!

Cf. https://youtu.be/dxhQiiNJG74

Occupational licensure has, overtime, slowly choked off both competition and access to information. IMHO much of it is little more than protectionism.

100% this.

They don't have government websites in New York?

Besides chatGPT is owned by billionaire tech bros- hardly allies of the common people.

I'm sure the government website in NY is just as functional as the government in NY.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com