131–140 of 204 posts
Are they perhaps working on a totally different real estate project. I am in that space and very nervous about it getting wiped out by anthropic or openAI.
To be honest, I am not sure why they still haven't make a big play for that industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation for #1 - https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2026/03/united-states-v-he... > Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of New York — addressing “a question of first impression nationwide” — ruled that written exchanges between a criminal defendant and generative AI platform Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Much more to it than this one-liner that I pulled out, bu…
> Much more to it than this one-liner that I pulled out, but safe to say, don't rely on or put your legal defense etc. (or elements of it) into AI unless you want it discovered. "You are an expert defense counsel with experience in Murder 1. Do not hallucinate. Let's say tomorrow my spouse is found strangled..."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As a lawyer, I'm excited about this, As in "I'm excited to win a lot of money dismantling hallucinated quotations and invalid assumptions"?
You can't criticize LLMs and Anthropic on a website where everybody and their grandma uses them for everything. New generation of brainlets that are gonna be clueless without constant Internet connection is brewing and it's gonna be hilarious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, are Google queries about the law considered attorney-client privilege? What about library records? Browser history? Google Maps / Uber / car travel history (when traveling to an attorney's office)? If somebody Googles "best attorney for murder NYC" a day after a murder is committed but before any case is filed against them (so they clearly had some reason to expect that case), could that be used as evidenc…
I'm not sure if you were actually asking the question but regardless the answer is that all of those absolutely can and are regularly used as evidence
As a lawyer, I'm excited about this, but there are two roadblocks that I'm not sure how Anthropic will navigate: (1) For non-lawyers who use these skills/connectors/whatchamacallits to try to get legal advice, their communications are not protected by attorney-client privilege. This will absolutely bite some people in the ass. (2) If a lawyer uses this with confidential client information (which, to the uninitiated,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation for #1 - https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2026/03/united-states-v-he... > Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of New York — addressing “a question of first impression nationwide” — ruled that written exchanges between a criminal defendant and generative AI platform Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Much more to it than this one-liner that I pulled out, bu…
Good argument for using DeepSeek with an anonymous form of payment. Discovery in China will be a tad more difficult…
They solved all this stuff, I'm surprised more people aren't aware of it.
I wonder why there isn't much for real estate in this package. Are they perhaps working on a totally different real estate project. I am in that space and very nervous about it getting wiped out by anthropic or openAI. To be honest, I am not sure why they still haven't make a big play for that industry.
It seems to me that heavily gate kept professions/knowledge will go first. As those tend to be extensive opinions to get.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So not familiar with the caselaw around work product, but if you use an API tool directly and not the different chat tools, the queries are not permanently cached for anyone to give up in the end. So basically if you use any of the CLI tools, there is nothing for OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. to give the courts. Online ChatGPT (especially the free version), are apparently cached by OpenAI on their servers. (I am not sure i…
Indeed, there is no way my terabytes per day of API calls is getting permanently stored anywhere. Perhaps an AI generated summary of it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government is just people. Even before the current fiasco, the government had varying degrees of incompetence and malice, and if you're poor you can't do anything about it since the government is presumed to have been operating in good faith and you can't afford a lawyer or the time off work to try to fix it pro se.
There is no such presumption in court. If you've been wronged you can get recompense regardless of their intent.
If a governmental employee gets the address wrong, gets the name wrong, accidentally knocks the mail in the trash, lazily marks the job as complete without sending anything, etc, the burden shifts to the poor person to prove not just that they didn't receive the mail but that the sending office didn't behave correctly.
Other cases behave similarly. In a he-said/she-said, the government wins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if you were actually asking the question but regardless the answer is that all of those absolutely can and are regularly used as evidence
Parent comment was asking about attorney-client privilege which means there's an attorney in the communication loop. If the person using a tool is an attorney, then that communication should be protected whether it's by pen or keyboard. But this is an active area of legislation and jurisprudence in relation to AI. I expect some important cases will happen
But the tool is not your attorney, so it can't be the originator of attorney-client privilege. The situation is no different than if you get informal legal advice from a friend: even if that friend is an attorney, the communication is unprivileged unless it's part of a formal representation.