How often do you use AI in your job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a lawyer what is the best AI tool for summarizing video meetings without creating privileged issues? That I think would actually be useful but not sure safe to adopt given the data issues.

Any LLM can summarize a meeting transcript.

I’m looking for one that will also create the transcript.

Check out Fireflies.

But I think every AI tool will arguably create a potential privilege issue- is disclosing it to the Ai tool disclosure to a 3rd party?? - although that’s just more work for the lawyers!

Again, this is a piece of software. Your company should have a closed version.

True but I’m just saying some crafty lawyer or class action lawyer will eventually try to find an argument around it.

But yes, a lot of the concerns voiced here are addressed by paying the $ for an enterprise version for your co

Um. No. Closed software is closed software. Your “crafty lawyer” has no case unless the companies screw up.

Sigh, you must be a dude, right? I’m not sure what lingo you’re trying to use but most SaaS tools are a combo of closed and open software. I assume you’re trying to say the info is secure and isn’t shared, but honestly I think you’re just throwing around lingo you don’t fully understand. You should be calling out SOC and encryption requirements but whatever…

The point is that you’d be surprised at what behind the scenes tracking that lawyers are eventually able to find to bring claims under awkwardly written laws that don’t translate into modern uses

No. I’m not throwing around “lingo” I don’t understand. I work for an org that simply has a closed instance of GPT-40. It’s not that complicated to have a closed instance of LLM software. You don’t need to understand every element of cybersecurity to know what an agreement not to send the data back means.

No one is suing over Microsoft Teams or Word, which also have access to all your private corporate data. In the end that is how this ends up. No one is going to sue over it unless these companies are really screwing around which in my opinion is not worth it when people are providing so much testing data on free instances of Chat-GPT.

Sigh. So a dude, yes. Who clearly has never worked in the privacy or class action space. That was my point- I agree overall that it’s not a risk but then again, crafty lawyers have found ways around common sense in ways that surprise me. Look up the current state of pen register lawsuits.

Anyway, move on. And upgrade to 5. It’s better

You are incorrect on both counts, and sexist to boot. 3/3

You’re a woman? Shame on you for adopting the worst qualities of a man.

And here ya go, beyatch.

Here’s your line of ‘crafty’ lawyers bringing privacy claims based on nothing. And for every lawsuit that reaches a court filing stage, there are dozens of threat letters sent to companies who agree to quietly settle before anything is filed.

https://www.klgates.com/Pen-Register-and-Trap-and-Trace-Claims-The-Latest-Wave-of-CIPA-Litigation-3-4-2024

You are a classic Dunning Kruger character.

Did you post this twice, the second time with added insults?

Perhaps you should master DCUM before insulting the tech savvy of others.

I posted this to every response that claimed I was wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How often? Zero.

Wrong. Dozens

https://www.klgates.com/Pen-Register-and-Trap-and-Trace-Claims-The-Latest-Wave-of-CIPA-Litigation-3-4-2024

i believe the PP you are responding to is indicating that they do not use AI at all in their job, not that there is no litigation around AI use.

This was the PPs original statement.

Please provide an instance of a “crafty lawyer” suing over a privacy breach where none actually occurred. I’ll wait.

And I posted this line of cases where crafty lawyers have sued over privacy breaches where none actually occurred.

https://www.klgates.com/Pen-Register-and-Trap-and-Trace-Claims-The-Latest-Wave-of-CIPA-Litigation-3-4-2024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a lawyer what is the best AI tool for summarizing video meetings without creating privileged issues? That I think would actually be useful but not sure safe to adopt given the data issues.

Any LLM can summarize a meeting transcript.

I’m looking for one that will also create the transcript.

Check out Fireflies.

But I think every AI tool will arguably create a potential privilege issue- is disclosing it to the Ai tool disclosure to a 3rd party?? - although that’s just more work for the lawyers!

Again, this is a piece of software. Your company should have a closed version.

True but I’m just saying some crafty lawyer or class action lawyer will eventually try to find an argument around it.

But yes, a lot of the concerns voiced here are addressed by paying the $ for an enterprise version for your co

Um. No. Closed software is closed software. Your “crafty lawyer” has no case unless the companies screw up.

Sigh, you must be a dude, right? I’m not sure what lingo you’re trying to use but most SaaS tools are a combo of closed and open software. I assume you’re trying to say the info is secure and isn’t shared, but honestly I think you’re just throwing around lingo you don’t fully understand. You should be calling out SOC and encryption requirements but whatever…

The point is that you’d be surprised at what behind the scenes tracking that lawyers are eventually able to find to bring claims under awkwardly written laws that don’t translate into modern uses

No. I’m not throwing around “lingo” I don’t understand. I work for an org that simply has a closed instance of GPT-40. It’s not that complicated to have a closed instance of LLM software. You don’t need to understand every element of cybersecurity to know what an agreement not to send the data back means.

No one is suing over Microsoft Teams or Word, which also have access to all your private corporate data. In the end that is how this ends up. No one is going to sue over it unless these companies are really screwing around which in my opinion is not worth it when people are providing so much testing data on free instances of Chat-GPT.

Sigh. So a dude, yes. Who clearly has never worked in the privacy or class action space. That was my point- I agree overall that it’s not a risk but then again, crafty lawyers have found ways around common sense in ways that surprise me. Look up the current state of pen register lawsuits.

Anyway, move on. And upgrade to 5. It’s better

Please provide an instance of a “crafty lawyer” suing over a privacy breach where none actually occurred. I’ll wait.

See this line of litigation which is just one of a number. You clearly don’t work around privacy issues (or tech). I do. Perhaps consider you don’t know everything. Because you don’t.

https://www.klgates.com/Pen-Register-and-Trap-and-Trace-Claims-The-Latest-Wave-of-CIPA-Litigation-3-4-2024

Are you a lawyer? This lawsuit appears to be completely irrelevant to the current discussion.

Yep. And me and this PP (you? now playing dumb bc you were so damned wrong?) were discussing the general idea that crafty lawyers can make claims out of very little. Not that there are any current AI privacy claims based on privilege waiver issues. Although of course there is a wave of AI litigation starting up in other areas.

Lawyers can sue over anything, particularly software that is available to the public at large. Ultimately software sold within an enterprise suite will be subject to whatever agreements and requirements the client requires. If you scroll up, you actually basically agreed with this and have gotten very exercised for little to no reason. Nobody called you an idiot. This website has really gone downhill because of this type of aggression.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used it to generate images for a presentation recently and it was great! Will never be using clip art again.

I am a manager and use it often for performance reviews, creating task lists, writing emails, turning emails in to bullet pointss, proofreading documents, preparing a business case memo, formatting agendas, making tables, creating schedules.

…smashing rocks, glueing them back together…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a lawyer what is the best AI tool for summarizing video meetings without creating privileged issues? That I think would actually be useful but not sure safe to adopt given the data issues.

Any LLM can summarize a meeting transcript.

I’m looking for one that will also create the transcript.

Check out Fireflies.

But I think every AI tool will arguably create a potential privilege issue- is disclosing it to the Ai tool disclosure to a 3rd party?? - although that’s just more work for the lawyers!

Again, this is a piece of software. Your company should have a closed version.

True but I’m just saying some crafty lawyer or class action lawyer will eventually try to find an argument around it.

But yes, a lot of the concerns voiced here are addressed by paying the $ for an enterprise version for your co

Um. No. Closed software is closed software. Your “crafty lawyer” has no case unless the companies screw up.

Sigh, you must be a dude, right? I’m not sure what lingo you’re trying to use but most SaaS tools are a combo of closed and open software. I assume you’re trying to say the info is secure and isn’t shared, but honestly I think you’re just throwing around lingo you don’t fully understand. You should be calling out SOC and encryption requirements but whatever…

The point is that you’d be surprised at what behind the scenes tracking that lawyers are eventually able to find to bring claims under awkwardly written laws that don’t translate into modern uses

No. I’m not throwing around “lingo” I don’t understand. I work for an org that simply has a closed instance of GPT-40. It’s not that complicated to have a closed instance of LLM software. You don’t need to understand every element of cybersecurity to know what an agreement not to send the data back means.

No one is suing over Microsoft Teams or Word, which also have access to all your private corporate data. In the end that is how this ends up. No one is going to sue over it unless these companies are really screwing around which in my opinion is not worth it when people are providing so much testing data on free instances of Chat-GPT.

Sigh. So a dude, yes. Who clearly has never worked in the privacy or class action space. That was my point- I agree overall that it’s not a risk but then again, crafty lawyers have found ways around common sense in ways that surprise me. Look up the current state of pen register lawsuits.

Anyway, move on. And upgrade to 5. It’s better

Please provide an instance of a “crafty lawyer” suing over a privacy breach where none actually occurred. I’ll wait.

See this line of litigation which is just one of a number. You clearly don’t work around privacy issues (or tech). I do. Perhaps consider you don’t know everything. Because you don’t.

https://www.klgates.com/Pen-Register-and-Trap-and-Trace-Claims-The-Latest-Wave-of-CIPA-Litigation-3-4-2024

Are you a lawyer? This lawsuit appears to be completely irrelevant to the current discussion.

Yep. And me and this PP (you? now playing dumb bc you were so damned wrong?) were discussing the general idea that crafty lawyers can make claims out of very little. Not that there are any current AI privacy claims based on privilege waiver issues. Although of course there is a wave of AI litigation starting up in other areas.

Lawyers can sue over anything, particularly software that is available to the public at large. Ultimately software sold within an enterprise suite will be subject to whatever agreements and requirements the client requires. If you scroll up, you actually basically agreed with this and have gotten very exercised for little to no reason. Nobody called you an idiot. This website has really gone downhill because of this type of aggression.

If you’re the PP, you were totally obnoxious first. And then couldn’t admit you were wrong. Just say ‘oh I didn’t know that’ and then move on. Very easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a lawyer what is the best AI tool for summarizing video meetings without creating privileged issues? That I think would actually be useful but not sure safe to adopt given the data issues.

Any LLM can summarize a meeting transcript.

I’m looking for one that will also create the transcript.

Check out Fireflies.

But I think every AI tool will arguably create a potential privilege issue- is disclosing it to the Ai tool disclosure to a 3rd party?? - although that’s just more work for the lawyers!

Again, this is a piece of software. Your company should have a closed version.

True but I’m just saying some crafty lawyer or class action lawyer will eventually try to find an argument around it.

But yes, a lot of the concerns voiced here are addressed by paying the $ for an enterprise version for your co

Um. No. Closed software is closed software. Your “crafty lawyer” has no case unless the companies screw up.

Sigh, you must be a dude, right? I’m not sure what lingo you’re trying to use but most SaaS tools are a combo of closed and open software. I assume you’re trying to say the info is secure and isn’t shared, but honestly I think you’re just throwing around lingo you don’t fully understand. You should be calling out SOC and encryption requirements but whatever…

The point is that you’d be surprised at what behind the scenes tracking that lawyers are eventually able to find to bring claims under awkwardly written laws that don’t translate into modern uses

No. I’m not throwing around “lingo” I don’t understand. I work for an org that simply has a closed instance of GPT-40. It’s not that complicated to have a closed instance of LLM software. You don’t need to understand every element of cybersecurity to know what an agreement not to send the data back means.

No one is suing over Microsoft Teams or Word, which also have access to all your private corporate data. In the end that is how this ends up. No one is going to sue over it unless these companies are really screwing around which in my opinion is not worth it when people are providing so much testing data on free instances of Chat-GPT.

Sigh. So a dude, yes. Who clearly has never worked in the privacy or class action space. That was my point- I agree overall that it’s not a risk but then again, crafty lawyers have found ways around common sense in ways that surprise me. Look up the current state of pen register lawsuits.

Anyway, move on. And upgrade to 5. It’s better

Please provide an instance of a “crafty lawyer” suing over a privacy breach where none actually occurred. I’ll wait.

See this line of litigation which is just one of a number. You clearly don’t work around privacy issues (or tech). I do. Perhaps consider you don’t know everything. Because you don’t.

https://www.klgates.com/Pen-Register-and-Trap-and-Trace-Claims-The-Latest-Wave-of-CIPA-Litigation-3-4-2024

Are you a lawyer? This lawsuit appears to be completely irrelevant to the current discussion.

Yep. And me and this PP (you? now playing dumb bc you were so damned wrong?) were discussing the general idea that crafty lawyers can make claims out of very little. Not that there are any current AI privacy claims based on privilege waiver issues. Although of course there is a wave of AI litigation starting up in other areas.

Lawyers can sue over anything, particularly software that is available to the public at large. Ultimately software sold within an enterprise suite will be subject to whatever agreements and requirements the client requires. If you scroll up, you actually basically agreed with this and have gotten very exercised for little to no reason. Nobody called you an idiot. This website has really gone downhill because of this type of aggression.

^ and you continue to not understand the issue. I’m not talking about AI suits directly, although there was just the largest copyright settlement ever in a copyright AI case, we were discussing privilege issues.

[Anonymous]

Younger millennial co worker just informed me ‘AI is so stupid! It’s not good for anything!’


What in the world.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Interestingly and not a surprise lawyers are the most skeptical and outspoken against AI. Since most congresspeople are lawyers I think lawyers are safe. They will craft laws to f**k everyone else but protect themselves. If you want job safety in America become a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Why are some of you so negative about AI? I hate the daily news about AI I am sick and tired to hear about AI everyday. Guess what? It's here to stay. Embrace it, learn it, use it, and you will leave those who shun it behind.