Anonymous wrote:I work in privacy

And? If you’re PP, you’re trying to change the convo now because your original statement was so wrong… Got it.

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.

I work in privacy

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.

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.

Nope. We were discussing how privilege issues aren’t a concern using AI in a lawyer client context, and I was saying that I tend to agree but I’ve often been surprised by how crafty lawyers twist laws and make headaches. And this guy (who now claims he’s not a guy) told me I was an idiot and wrong, and no privacy claims had ever been brought when there wasn’t a true breach. Sure, if you read regular news and only see lawsuits when Target has a customer list security breach or something, then you might think that. But if you work in the tech or privacy or class action world, you will know there is always tons of litigation activity based on what a normal person would not think of as a ‘breach’. Quite literally ‘crafty lawyers’ are able to argue technical violations of old laws that were not intended to apply in the digital age. It happens all the time.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:I just did 15 performance reviews in an hour.
I started by having a meeting with each person where We jointly summarized what I though were their top hits. (This took time, but is easier for me than for writing up something for each person)
I encouraged them to use AI to write it for the review.
I exported each person their summary.
I put in a plain english response "This is all good and correct. Next year she should focus on being confident in her decisions."
And I asked Copilot to write my part of the review.
So fast.

You should have just had AI listen to the conversations.

How often? Zero.

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

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.

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