21–30 of 204 posts
Honest question: Do these systems not share data with the AI servers? Or are they all local (on-site, not on-computer)? I am totally baffled by the trust people put on these systems, sharing with them the most obviously private data.
The average person doesn't care about online privacy.
The main point raised in the article is that these bots may void attorney client privileges. But the real danger with these IMO is that they're turning casual conversations into a permanent record, and one that will be completely discoverable in court, should the company get into trouble later.
Basically, it will be harder to hide illegal and unethical stuff companies routinely engage in.
I have a friend who works at a large-ish company that imports and manufactures things (in one of the clerical/quantitative professions). A few years back, they had the IT department go on a kind of "inquisition", wherein they forced employees to disable the summarization function that came with MS Teams, and threatened to fire them if they did not. The resistance to this demand was surprising -- most people are clueless about the cost of their own convenience. Worst of all, people would zone out of meetings, because the AI was producing summaries, which they would then never read.
The effect of the technology was that it made meetings infinitely more expensive, because the supposed benefit of meetings was nullified by complacency, _and_ it made the meetings a liability (incorrectly summarized meetings, that could be used in the discovery process, sure, but could also be sold by MSFT as a kind of market-research-data to competitors in the space).
Nothing illegal has to happen in these meetings at all, for this tech to cause an infinity of problems for the corporation. Every employee that uses these is effectively an unwitting spy. And if that is the case, then the meetings might as well be recorded and uploaded to YouTube (or whatever people watch these days)[1].
[1]: Maybe this is the future. Which I am okay with, but only if the entire planet has to do it, and the penalties for not doing it are irrecoverably severe.
Honest question: Do these systems not share data with the AI servers? Or are they all local (on-site, not on-computer)? I am totally baffled by the trust people put on these systems, sharing with them the most obviously private data.
The main point raised in the article is that these bots may void attorney client privileges. But the real danger with these IMO is that they're turning casual conversations into a permanent record, and one that will be completely discoverable in court, should the company get into trouble later.
Basically, it will be harder to hide illegal and unethical stuff companies routinely engage in.
Modernized. Industrial AI scale.
The main point raised in the article is that these bots may void attorney client privileges. But the real danger with these IMO is that they're turning casual conversations into a permanent record, and one that will be completely discoverable in court, should the company get into trouble later.
Basically, it will be harder to hide illegal and unethical stuff companies routinely engage in.
The main point raised in the article is that these bots may void attorney client privileges. But the real danger with these IMO is that they're turning casual conversations into a permanent record, and one that will be completely discoverable in court, should the company get into trouble later.
I’ve been saying it since the mid-10s, but it’s worth repeating: data isn’t gold, it’s more like oxygen in a room in that the higher the concentration, the more likely it is to poison the inhabitants or explode with an errant spark (lawsuit).
Collect only what’s needed to perform the function, and store it only as long as necessary for compliance. Anything else is going to spool counsel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's in the viewable text on the page. > A trendy productivity hack, A.I. note takers are capturing every joke and offhand comment in many meetings. They could also potentially waive attorney-client privilege. By now everyone knows that AI notes that aren't curated by a human will catch every silly thing that was said in the meeting while omitting the context of the tone or body language. Something as simple as "yeah…
People opt in to the panopticon and then discover they have no more secrets. I'm surprised lawyers fall for that as well.
To be fair, the attorney-client privilege should be completely technology/medium agnostic. If the intention is to have that info stay between client and attorney, nothing should change this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've found they're surprisingly good if everyone on the call is using a decent headset. The problems start when using conference room audio or someone is on their laptop mic. If they miss a word they never do unintelligible , they just start playing madlibs based on the rest of the sentence. We just went through a round of 100+ (non-sensitive) VoC interviews and they really cut down the workload of compiling all of…
> If they miss a word they never do unintelligible, they just start playing madlibs based on the rest of the sentence. Imo this is the single biggest flaw of LLMs. They're great at a lot of things, but knowing when they're wrong (or don't have enough information to actually work on) is a critical flaw. IMO there's nothing structural about why they shouldn't be able to spot this and correct themselves - I suspect it's…
The main point raised in the article is that these bots may void attorney client privileges. But the real danger with these IMO is that they're turning casual conversations into a permanent record, and one that will be completely discoverable in court, should the company get into trouble later.