A practical example from my personal life, where ChatGPT acts as my lawyer.
I was caught speeding. But I didn't see any signs limiting the speed anywhere. So I went back the next day to see if there was a sign.
There is indeed a speed limit sign, but it is completely covered by leaves, making it unrecognizable (under the “School” sign, picture attached).
I asked ChatGPT whether this violated German law, and ChatGPT clearly said yes. Setting up a speed camera behind a traffic sign that indicates a speed limit but is completely covered by leaves violates applicable law.
I filed an appeal. ChatGPT wrote the following appeal:
"I reject the warning and request that the case be dismissed (Section 47 OWiG). The 274 “30 km/h” sign at the measurement location was not visible because it was obscured by dense vegetation under the “school” sign; it was barely visible from the driver's perspective and even from the sidewalk. In addition, parked delivery vehicles partially obscure the signpost. According to § 39 StVO/VwV-StVO, a sign must be easily and promptly recognizable; the principle of visibility (“quick, casual glance”) has been violated here (BVerwG 3 C 18.07). A sign that is not objectively recognizable has no effect (Hamm Higher Regional Court III-3 RBs 336/09; Oldenburg Higher Regional Court Ss 147/02). I have attached photos (attachments) and request, as an alternative, the submission of the signage plan and maintenance logs, as well as an on-site inspection."
I will keep you informed about the outcome of the legal dispute.
“AI is evil”
Meanwhile, ChatGPT: