Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self host your own LLM
Why do you think this would be less discoverable than hosting your own email server?
Because you don't keep logs.
Claude for Legal
41–50 of 204 posts
Re: Claude for Legal
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self host your own LLM
Why do you think this would be less discoverable than hosting your own email server?
If you use a stateless client (like just rawdogging cli llama.cpp) there’s nothing to discover. Setting a program with an option to have logs to not do that could conceivably get you in trouble but using a widely used program that never had logs seems like it has to be fine. Maybe they could nail you for googling “which local llm approach generates logs?” also, don’t get nailed by your bash history!
Re: Claude for Legal
#43Anthropics New Playbook: `/loop 2days /create-new-{insert-industry}-md-files` This is only for PR. No one checks what's in those docs, or if these are real, valid or ethical. The goal here is for all news outlets to pick them up. You're not the audience. Given the amount of free PR they can get from some AI-generated .md files, I'd probably do the same if I was on their boat. Right now, I don't think any other AI com…
There's going to be a "Claude for wiping my ass" at this rate.
Re: Claude for Legal
#44Would use it if it wasn't supporting the space wanker
Who? There are several space wankers but I don't know of any tied to Anthropic.
Re: Claude for Legal
#45> for the legal workflows we see most I'm a bit bothered by this line. Does it mean this is based on customer's sessions? Are they entitled to build knowledge bases for every profession, topic and workflow in the world using customer data?
Yes they are training on your business's data so that their AI can replace your business later. If you don't believe it, name one thing they didn't train on.
It definitely looks like the old tale come true - at Microsoft people would warn against using Google because then Google could figure out what we're working on, since it was pretty easy to tell where a query was coming from.
Sounded far fetched back then, and on the face of it illegal, but now it's just common sense I imagine.
Re: Claude for Legal
#46I guess at some point we will have lawyers, attorneys and judges using this stuff ... at the point lawyers will become kinda "seo"/"copywriter" experts on how to better trick the others LLM.
the look on the face of the Court administrator upon hearing someone describe the "paperclip maximizer" problem.. ominous!
Re: Claude for Legal
#47It seems like they ripped out Lexis, which is probably one of the most important tools for lawyers: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-for-legal/pull/5 .
> at partner request
Curious if Thomson Reuters (Westlaw) felt threatened if they were this compelled to moan about it. All it does is make me wonder how well these skills perform when paired with Lexis (if possible?) instead of Westlaw.
Re: Claude for Legal
#48As 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,…
what if either user uses these skills with offline weights? should help with 2), at least right?
Re: Claude for Legal
#49This is why I think many of the current application-layer AI startup valuations are a bit iffy. When the big AI companies like Anthropic start expanding their vertical products, the calculus changes.
I'm just wondering how committed they'll be - I guess the edge some startups still have, is the fear that product suites from OpenAI / Anthropic / etc. will go the way of Google products, a year or two then straight to the morgue.
Re: Claude for Legal
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
For (1) it's so wild to me that if I pay a lawyer, they can run the same queries on these tools and they are protected by attorney-client privilege, but if I do it to help me prepare my defense, then the exact same queries would be subject to subpoena/discovery. Does anyone know if there exists any OPSEC procedure for me to use third party tools like this for my own concerning legal questions that is both ethical and…
> Does anyone know if there exists any OPSEC procedure for me to use third party tools like this for my own concerning legal questions that is both ethical and allows me to be confident that my interactions won't land in discovery documents? Isn't that a fundamental misunderstanding? Would "OPSEC" like that amount to destruction of evidence or contempt of court or something like that? Like if all your incriminating d…
That’s absolutely part of my question. I’m not familiar enough with discovery to fully understand this.