[paulryanrogers]

This requires care as it may only require a few details or other metadata like when/where one asked to narrow down who they're talking about. Considering ChatGPT leaks and hallucinations I would hope folks in law and medicine are being very careful.

[hugh-avherald]

That seems overly risk-averse. Legal privilege does not require such extreme vigilance in op sec. One does not breach privilege by googling keywords relevant to a case then the client's address for example.

[blibble]

the firm's compliance officers will be demanding that the services are completely blocked and that any use whatsoever is a disciplinary offence

(in their view: removing the risk almost entirely)

[terminalcommand]

In my firm, it is the contrary. We are advised to remove any personal data in our queries and double check the output. We are encouraged to use chatgpt/bing on a daily basis to learn it. Our firm is also planning to purchase an LLM that will work locally.

[blibble]

in my (very large) Western firm: it's exactly what I said

[mensetmanusman]

The market will determine the winner: a few high profile cases where AI enhanced arguments dominate people who are tying their hands behind their back will turn the tide.

[blibble]

we don't live in pure market economies

legislation, not the market will determine the outcome of the artificial "intelligence" battle

and large traditional industries are rather good at lobbying against their upstart complements

(the fact the RIAA and MPAA even still exist is proof of this point)