Oh, wow. I hadn't considered this angle: "There's also the risk that conversations between an attorney and client could become fair game in legal proceedings; a New York federal judge in February ordered a criminal defendant to provide prosecutors with documents he created for his lawyers because it already had been shared with a third party, which was Anthropic's Claude." https://www.fastcompany.com/91571498/ai-notetaker-work-meetings-privacy-data

@lrhodes So anything written on GDocs or sent to a GMail address is also fair game then?

@buherator @lrhodes that makes perfect sense and is completely insane at the same time 🤯

@buherator @lrhodes now I'm wondering what it means for AI integretion in knowledge based system (obsidian, confluence, notion)

@electret @lrhodes It's always been someone else's computer...

@buherator @lrhodes yeah of course, but until these kind of AI agent tools, it always felt like they where sharing space for you that they couldn't access, same as if you rent a safe in a bank.

@electret @lrhodes Honest question: What on Earth made you feel that way? I see absolutely zero indicators of privacy in any mainstream LLM app (similarly to Google/Meta).

@buherator @lrhodes I mean: if you have a space on obsidian, confluence or notion, it feels like you're renting space, but they are not supposed to have access to the content. With AI added to it, it flips the equation. Not using AI agents within these tools so I never thought about it before.

@electret @lrhodes Ahh you mean the smaller players like Obsidian ! I bet they can absolutely see your shit, but they may be legally constrained in what they can do with it (maybe... have you read the TOS?). Granting access to an LLM most likely changes your Terms and Conditions (not because it's a technical necessity, but because of the business model of the LLM provider).

Btw this is a useful site:

https://tldrtos.com/

@buherator Not unless you're using Gemini to summarize. AFAICT, the ruling applies specifically to prompts tendered by the defendent and output produced by the LLM. If Gmail or Gdocs are only conveying messages between the client and their lawyer, that's not covered by this ruling.

Basically, the premise is that the prompt is addressed to the LLM provider, not the lawyer, while the output is the work of a third-party, even if it summarizes priviliged material.

@lrhodes Thanks that makes sense...sort of...