Thread

1. throwaway89864 · 1790565223 · focus · HN ↗

   The issue is that communications with A.I. are not privileged like client-attorney. There was some judge that made that ruling.

   Feels like a conflict of interests to me, I'd guess friends, neighbors, children and nieces of that judge enjoying their livelihood by charging for legal services. While legal services are now available under substantially lower rates and with a lot fewer conflicts of interests from A.I. providers...

   1. true_religion · 1790565836 · focus · HN ↗

      They ruled that it's like a journal, or a tool like a search engine. This seems fair.

      1. judge2020 · 1790566634 · focus · HN ↗

         But, if you were to represent yourself, are your journal entries about said case privileged? Can the opposition call into evidence a binder of legal strategies you created that morning before court?

         At what point does it become a 5th amendment issue? Maybe when we get AI in our corneas a la Black Mirror's The Entire History of You?

         1. true_religion · 1790613528 · focus · HN ↗

            They'd generally be protected if you were using them purely for legal theories. But that's really left up to judicial discretion.

            It's more likely to be ruled in your favor if you started the research after being arraigned, and choosing to represent yourself.

            But if you were just googling "murder defense theory" and are accused of murder, they'll be able to use that against you.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.