3 ms·
> Upload Everything to AI Projects. Unless you're using an ephemeral on-prem LLM that doesn't keep logs you should begin with an assumption that your AI chat
by nullc 1y ago
> Upload Everything to AI Projects.
Unless you're using an ephemeral on-prem LLM that doesn't keep logs you should begin with an assumption that your AI chat transcripts will be available to your opponents in discovery. There isn't clear caselaw on this yet, but given that material you share with third parties other than your lawyers almost always is and sharing your strategy musing would probably be disastrous, you should plan accordingly.
Particularly, subpoena are quite powerful in the US and can be obtained quite easily and often without an adequate opportunity for the ultimate user to oppose them. The AI providers will comply with them as just a matter of process, and the first notice that an opponent is seeking your transcripts may be after they already have them. (And that's assuming your opposition doesn't have insiders at the AI company to begin with...)
That aside-- Having thoroughly dispatched an AI dependent opponent in court, uhh, well lets just say that I hope any future opponents read this article. ChatGPT outputs an astonishingly embarrassing amount of completely wrong pseudolegal nonsense and set him up for multiple case losing disasters.
There are also a number of advanced strategies available to an opponent who has realized you are using an LLM, as they now have oracle access to something similar to your own AI advice and can test their actions against the advice it will cause you to get from your AI. ... even so far as brute force searching rewrites of the language in their correspondence to increase the odds that you get disastrous advice.
- pjc50 1y agoOh, that's entertaining. If you're using AI as your attorney you have no attorney - client privileges. US discovery law is wild.
- unyttigfjelltol 1y agoAn aggressive litigant might claim the AI was essential to assist the founder in communicating with counsel, and thus similarly protected to some degree. This is coming up in search results as an "agency" rule and the founder still would need reasonable expectations of confidentiality from Claude, etc. There are legal research AI's and tools out there, which sophisticated non lawyers probably use. Discovery rules haven't been a deterrent because of the companion work product doctrine which is an adjuct to the American Rule-- you generally can't use discovery to extract legal research from the other side.
- treetalker 1y agoWhen lawyers speak of the American Rule, we mean the concept that each party pays for its own legal fees unless that default is changed by statute, contract, or court action (for example, sanctions) — as opposed to the English Rule, under which the losing party generally must pay the prevailing party's fees. Even in most American jurisdictions, the losing party ends up paying many of the prevailing party's costs (deposition transcripts, expert costs, etc.).
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- raverbashing 1y ago- Use an AI that don't keep any records - Delete that data as per your retention records (there's also the fun alternative with feeding believable but slightly wrong info to the AIs and let the opposite council chase loose ends)
- nullc 1y agoRight but with cloud services, you can't control their retention and settings to not retain almost always do retain but deny you access to it. They'll still serve it up in a subponea even when they won't give it to you.
- Majromax 1y ago> There isn't clear caselaw on this yet, but given that material you share with third parties other than your lawyers almost always is and sharing your strategy musing would probably be disastrous, you should plan accordingly. Wouldn't this have largely been settled already with cloud computing? If I use gmail to write an e-mail to my lawyer, then I can't imagine that e-mail is unprivileged because it's "shared" with Google.