If robots are already used to resolve disputes, why not humans of litigants' choice?

If the Ebay customers resolve their disputes through an online dispute-resolution website, that's ok.

If the same people engage a human to help them resolve the dispute or advise about it, that would be a crime of unauthorized practice of law.

Now, if robots are allowed to practice law, why not humans, ALL humans, without license restrictions? 

Even though it is now recognized that regulation of the legal profession drives prices for legal services out of reach for most customers, and not only in the U.S., to the point that in Holland people are now allowed to be advised in divorces by robots - which improves access to justice.

Isn't it silly, not to mention unfair to those who are in need of advice and assistance with access to courts that robots are allowed to improve access to justice, but unlicensed individuals of people's choice are not?

Ins't it silly not to allow unlicensed humans to do what unlicensed robots are already doing - in the U.S., too?

It is the beginning of the robot v human discrimination, isn't it?

I wonder who will be the first human who will file such a lawsuit, to invalidate unauthorized practice of law (UPL) statutes on grounds that UPL is allowed to robots.