> I can browse case law or US code thinking about my case - somehow this does not need a legal license.

Of course. With rare exceptions, court proceedings are public.

But being able to read court proceeds or judgements or anything at all doesn't mean that you know and understand the law. You know, the actual words that are written and codified that must be interpreted and adhered to with jurisprudence.

Not that lawyers actually do either. But at least they've been certified (by "the bar" association) to have some competence in the matter.

But on the other hand, one can't argue ignorance of the law so then everyone is supposed to already know all laws and understand them!

I am strong believe that basics of law should be taught in school, especially criminal.

If governmet will prosecute me for free (to the accuser), then it should, for free, teach me the law.

I don't think and anyone is saying that using the bot is illegal. The issue is that DoNotPay is calling the bot a lawyer and therefor implying that it gives legal advice. Their website literally says "World's First Robot Lawyer." Someone who doesn't understand AI might wrongly think that their AI tools are qualified to represent them on their own.

I suspect that it would be much less of an issue if it was advertised as an "AI paralegal."

>talking to a lawyer about my case obviously needs him to be licensed

Why's that obvious tho? Shouldn't it be on you to decide if you want a licensed lawyer? Isn't that the point of your post?

Do you not understand the concept of advice? Browsing the law and coming to your own conclusion isn't "getting advice".

What if the DoNotPay bot does not give any advice, just points out existing cases that it finds appropriate and their interpretation in its search results ?