Edit: OK, I'll remove the snark fairly called out by dvt:

There is something very concerning about this article: submitting private information to LLMs w/no privacy guarantees is probably a crime. I strongly recommend taking down this article and that you stop submitting private information to LLMs with no privacy guarantees until you have spoken with an informed lawyer on this matter.

Local models may be of assistance here, but you need to be very careful.

▲

subscribed 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Too bad dvt deleted their comment calling your comment a low effort and negative, because your point is valid.

Unless OP is using hosted models, especially those with always-on training, that's quite clear cut breaking at least privacy laws, likely more, especially if the court documents are additionally protected.

So that's basically showing the HN how egregiously a number of lawyers, accountants and paralegals "conspire" to break the law in order to process more cases in parallel and earn more money.

I think that's pretty accurate?

If OPs father doesn't want to do it manually they must at least run it locally, or obtain the court permission to share the privileged information with a number of third parties, possibly shoving it into the future corpus of information.

	▲	recursivedoubts 44 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		if dvt is reading: yeah maybe too negative and it's true that I didn't type a lot, but I'm right on this and it's exposing this person and their dad to possible legal problems.
	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

mym1990 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Username checks out

▲

micromacrofoot 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

yeah OP needs to self-host their models or this is a box of pain

▲

dvt 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

jakeydus 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think OP's being hyperbolic, but defending an idea that is dangerous at worst and immature at best doesn't do much to forward creativity, entrepreneurship, or engineering. Engineers who build products that put people (or their data) in danger are bad engineers. We need to hold one another to a higher standard.

▲

dvt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> doesn't do much to forward creativity, entrepreneurship, or engineering

Who are you (or who am I) to decide that? The entire point of a show HN is to be non-judgmental and charitable, otherwise it's just going to turn into a cynical echo-chamber. The famous Dropbox comment is a cautionary tale for a reason.

▲

jakeydus an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I could build the greatest healthcare tool in the world, but if it's not HIPAA compliant then it's worthless in the United States. More than that, if I built it without HIPAA compliance in mind as a first principle, what other mistakes did I make on the way?

I'm not trying to gatekeep and say that only domain experts should be allowed to build software, but part of being an engineer is doing due diligence to understand the domain well enough to build the product. If OP failed to recognize that any forensic accountant that gets caught uploading privileged documents into a random AI tool would be both breaking the chain of possession of that document AND client privilege, what other mistakes did they make along the way?

I went through the entire website and couldn't find a single mention about privacy. I'm not a domain expert, but I would expect the product site for any legal tool to at least have a disclaimer.

▲

recursivedoubts 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fair my comment is perhaps a bit cynical but the point of it is deadly serious: like if one of the people involved in the mentioned divorce case finds out possible grounds for a mistrial/retrial. IANAL but I understand the restrictions the ACM puts on using LLMs for even paper reviews, which are far less sensitive than peoples private financial matters.

Regardless, I'm comfortable being a called fool.

	▲	dvt 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Apologies for being a bit snarky, you're alright :)

▲

q3k 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Show HN: AI-enabled orphan grinder

> Person A: yo wtf is wrong with you

> Person B: Who are you (or who am I) to decide that? The entire point of a show HN is to be non-judgmental and charitable, otherwise it's just going to turn into a cynical echo-chamber. The famous Dropbox comment is a cautionary tale for a reason.