[minimaltom]

It seems like the main attack scenario for this + legal AI would be during discovery: if opposing counsel gave you a poisoned PDF, and you threw it into one of these products to help you sift through it and got bad answers.

However, wouldnt this be a rather risky move? Courts authorized the discovery, so I imagine the judge might loose their marbles and throw the hammer at them if this came to light.

[piker]

Yes, this particular vector is probably better in contracting than discovery. There is a duty of candor to the court and court rules that might come into play. In the case of contracting the attacker would be exposed to the jurisdiction's law of contracts. That might call it a "misrepresentation" or fraudulent thus making the contract void or voidable, but it's not clear "your honor I never read the contract but my LLM told me it was okay to sign" is a great argument either.

[minimaltom]

In this case you can say "the contract we reviewed was poisoned via technical means to show different words, depending on how the file was read". Perhaps if pushed you can say you loaded it into GCAI/Harvey/Legora and read/reviewed it there.

There is no parallel construction where this wasn't deliberate & malicious, so it seems really high risk given the judge would rip you a new one if discovered.

You can't rely on the defense that the other party didnt read it, if you made it show different words depending on how it was loaded.

[dwallin]

You don’t need to make that argument. “I changed the font when reviewing to one that is easier for me to read.”