This. All of your rights are up for debate under a judge. There’s only a few you can still exercise if a judge wants something from you but ultimately if a judge decides it’s relevant to the case, it’s relevant to the case and you must comply. Or be held in contempt. Or praise? With a senate hearing to boot. I’m confused on how our legal system actually functions now but that is how it’s supposed to be. If a judge decides to include it, it’s in. Go get it.
One of my friends recently spent some time getting an OpenClaw instance running in Ubuntu so he could have a truly private conversation with it, complete with an air gap.
The value of that configuration has just been greatly magnified.
Has it? There's value in privacy vis-a-vis snooping corporations, but those conversations could still be surrendered to the court if the judge rules them potentially relevant, and if your friend refuses to do so, he'd be held in contempt of court.
I agree, but it's not like Anthropic was running to tell the lawyers and the judge in this story. The most likely scenario is your friend would just let slip he's using AI, or people who know him would let it slip, and the lawyers or judge will demand the conversations for discovery.
If I was strongly motivated to gather AI analysis of litigation, I think that I would turn to Tor if possible, and remove any specifics from the discussion.
Unless you personally developed the AI to do this, then it is almost certain that any third party AI is harvesting every nugget from you in one way or another. Even when they say they aren't. Like all the other big tech out there, it was designed for the makers not for the users.
This thread is about a locally running LLM, with an air gap.
How can a third party company harvest anything from that? Even if you didn't develop the LLM yourself, if you downloaded it and are running it locally with no internet access, I don't see how it'll leak info to a third party.
