Reply to How often do you use AI in your job?

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "How often do you use AI in your job?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

Any LLM can summarize a meeting transcript.[/quote]

I’m looking for one that will also create the transcript.  [/quote]

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! [/quote]

Again, this is a piece of software.  Your company should have a closed version.[/quote]

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

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

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

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 [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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 [/quote]

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

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[/quote]

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

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.

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics