Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Things You Told ChatGPT or Claude My Have Already Doomed You in Court (Futurism, 4/18)
https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/lawyer-claude-ai-chatbot-snip-
The problem is that while attorney-client privilege protects most information exchanged between Heppner and his lawyers, it doesn’t extend to anything he jammed into Claude. As a result, the embattled financier is being forced to hand over 31 documents generated by Claude to the court.
In his opinion, Rakoff wrote that no attorney-client relationship exists “or could exist, between an AI user and a platform such as Claude.” The judge went even further, absolving the chatbot from any impropriety, because “Claude disclaims providing legal advice.”
“Indeed, when the Government asked Claude whether it could give legal advice, it responded that ‘I’m not a lawyer and can’t provide formal legal advice or recommendations’ and went on to recommend that a user ‘should consult with a qualified attorney who can properly assess your specific circumstances,'” Rakoff further explained.
-snip-
Again, tech companies handing personal data to Uncle Sam — willingly or otherwise — is nothing new. But when you consider how many people have dumped their entire brains into these chatbots over the past few years, it’s clear this ruling represents a new frontier for tech industry compliance with government demands.
The problem is that while attorney-client privilege protects most information exchanged between Heppner and his lawyers, it doesn’t extend to anything he jammed into Claude. As a result, the embattled financier is being forced to hand over 31 documents generated by Claude to the court.
In his opinion, Rakoff wrote that no attorney-client relationship exists “or could exist, between an AI user and a platform such as Claude.” The judge went even further, absolving the chatbot from any impropriety, because “Claude disclaims providing legal advice.”
“Indeed, when the Government asked Claude whether it could give legal advice, it responded that ‘I’m not a lawyer and can’t provide formal legal advice or recommendations’ and went on to recommend that a user ‘should consult with a qualified attorney who can properly assess your specific circumstances,'” Rakoff further explained.
-snip-
Again, tech companies handing personal data to Uncle Sam — willingly or otherwise — is nothing new. But when you consider how many people have dumped their entire brains into these chatbots over the past few years, it’s clear this ruling represents a new frontier for tech industry compliance with government demands.