Remix.run Logo
▲ throwaway89864 2 hours ago

The issue is that communications with A.I. are not privileged like client-attorney. There was some judge that made that ruling.

Feels like a conflict of interests to me, I'd guess friends, neighbors, children and nieces of that judge enjoying their livelihood by charging for legal services. While legal services are now available under substantially lower rates and with a lot fewer conflicts of interests from A.I. providers...

▲anon373839 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This is a completely straightforward application of existing law on privilege. To maintain privilege, among other things, communications must be confidential.

Chatting with Claude breaks confidentiality: chats with Claude are subject to arbitrary inspection by Anthropic employees, not to mention the issue of model training.

You can use self-hosted LLMs without breaking privilege. And funny enough, law firms like Latham & Watkins are now buying Nvidia GPU clusters for this purpose.

▲jryle70 15 minutes ago | parent [-]

> communications must be confidential.

Email and phone calls are considered confidential, even though it is possible for vendors to inspect the communication. I expect AI use will be tested legally, but once precedence has been established in court it will become a common practice.

▲true_religion an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

They ruled that it's like a journal, or a tool like a search engine. This seems fair.

▲judge2020 an hour ago | parent [-]

But, if you were to represent yourself, are your journal entries about said case privileged? Can the opposition call into evidence a binder of legal strategies you created that morning before court?

At what point does it become a 5th amendment issue? Maybe when we get AI in our corneas a la Black Mirror's The Entire History of You?