That's one judge. An audio tape made by a criminal defendant is intended for review by his counsel is a non-discoverable privileged communication. The tape retains this character if reviewed by an attorney-authorized paralegal. What difference exists where the attorney has the tape summarized by AI. I respectfully submit that Hizzoner is incorrect.

We might also ask if the best venue to decide national AI regulation is a single judge sitting in a criminal case involving a fraudster. If Judge Rakoff is correct, then a trade secret shared with AI is no longer a trade secret. This affects not just a single NY criminal defendant, but anyone that runs a company and wants to keep business practices secret. I would submit that this is no way to regulate a field such as AI.

▲

pavel_lishin 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> What difference exists where the attorney has the tape summarized by AI.

But that's not what happened here.

▲

markisus 2 days ago | parent [-]

But this ruling will surely set precedent for other cases where AI is used. It may cover the case of AI summaries as well.

	▲	grepfru_it 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> But this ruling will surely set precedent for other cases where AI is used. I dont remember which court. But this is typically in that jurisdiction. It can be appealed higher. SCOTUS has not ruled so it’s still up for further argument

▲

cowboylowrez a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I dunno, ruling seems to have a point to me, a non-lawyer. claude is not an attorney and his attorney was not involved until after the claude "conversation". Look at for instance the exchange of emails with your lawyer, are they privileged? Yes, with caveats according to gemini but it could be lying of course. How about if you emailed your mobster uncle asking for advice on how to use a lawyer to keep your guilty ass outta jail? Is that privileged? All of a sudden I'm not so sure.

This seems to be a pretty narrow ruling but maybe I'm missing something not being a lawyer and all.

	▲	mbrumlow a day ago \| parent [-]
		I look a Claude / ChatGPT as an extension of my thought. It should be held as such in all court proceedings. It’s used to allow me to think and reason about things. Idk how that works with journals today, but anything like this which helps me organize my thoughts should be off limits to discovery.