6 ms·

Even the “pre-case” legal stuff is out of control. In my Australian organisation we’ve noticed a deluge of what I can only call “privacy demands” that talk the

Even the “pre-case” legal stuff is out of control. In my Australian organisation we’ve noticed a deluge of what I can only call “privacy demands” that talk the talk… but have the jurisdiction or subject legislation wrong. But AI told them they could demand these things (even if it would be illegal for us to comply! Think KYC stuff.) and they don’t have the skill to criticise the AI or know when to stop.

maccard 1mo ago
Yep, and the cost is borne by the receiver of the letter. The person sending shitty LawyerGPT messages will just keep doing it until there’s consequences, but there aren’t any.
weakened_malloc 1mo ago
Is it any different to how it was previously? Before the age of AI, companies write all sorts of bullshit stuff into ToS or EULA which was neither enforceable or legal yet they routinely got away with it because Joe Schmoe had no ability to assess their arguments or fight back. The only difference now is that the general population has gained access to low cost legal help and are able to push and argue (whether rightly or wrongly), previously it was the other way around.
- j-bos 1mo ago
  Problem: the plebs are being opressed Solution: arm the oppressed New problem: civil war
  - weakened_malloc 1mo ago
    So you think that legal skills / help should remain expensive?
    - j-bos 1mo ago
      "So you think {}" in the wild! =D Ty, and to answer your question: No. I'm commenting on a neat parallel. Personally I like the improvements that come from fairer games.
      - weakened_malloc 1mo ago
        It was a genuine question because I wasn't really understanding the point of your OP, apologies if it came off snarky.
        j-bos 1mo ago
        All good :)
- jackvalentine 1mo ago
  > Is it any different to how it was previously? Before the age of AI, companies write all sorts of bullshit stuff into ToS or EULA which was neither enforceable or legal yet they routinely got away with it because Joe Schmoe had no ability to assess their arguments or fight back. Well yes, because we don't do that. You might be shocked to hear we don't even have a ToS or EULA and the relevant legislation acts as that for our purposes.
  - weakened_malloc 1mo ago
    I was just using that as an example with the private sector, but my opinion is equivalent to the public sector. Democratising access to legal knowledge / help / assistance is a good thing, regardless of the effect it has on public services. Where you might see it as a deluge of AI slop - and I've got no doubt it is - I see the need for whatever part of the govt you're into improve their services. If the public is annoyed by how your service is being provided and they feel the need to send through AI generated privacy demands, that suggests the department you're in isn't doing a good job relative to your customer's expectations. Something needs to change; maybe have a page that allows people to delete accounts or whatever private information they're ALLOWED to delete, maybe the public needs to feel more reassured that their data is safe, or maybe it's something else. Whatever the reason, AI has placed pressure on you and your arm of government to meet the expectations of the public, pressure that didn't previously exist.
    - jackvalentine 1mo ago
      > Democratising access to legal knowledge / help / assistance is a good thing, regardless of the effect it has on public services. When the 'democratised access' means they're quoting laws from other countries, sometimes multiple other countries mashed together I don't think anyone is getting value out of it. We're not getting informed engagement from the public and the person making demands isn't getting any kind of valued legal assistance. We have always, and continue to have, thoughtful engagement from the public in the form of questions about our operations. This new thing is not that. It's wild. I take your point about there being an opportunity to be more proactively transparent or clear with people and I push for that a lot... but the sad fact is this new class of AI fuelled fervour really is just something else. It takes away our limited resources to do good work just to respond to it.

maccard 1mo ago

Yep, and the cost is borne by the receiver of the letter. The person sending shitty LawyerGPT messages will just keep doing it until there’s consequences, but there aren’t any.

weakened_malloc 1mo ago

Is it any different to how it was previously? Before the age of AI, companies write all sorts of bullshit stuff into ToS or EULA which was neither enforceable or legal yet they routinely got away with it because Joe Schmoe had no ability to assess their arguments or fight back. The only difference now is that the general population has gained access to low cost legal help and are able to push and argue (whether rightly or wrongly), previously it was the other way around.

j-bos 1mo ago
Problem: the plebs are being opressed Solution: arm the oppressed New problem: civil war
- weakened_malloc 1mo ago
  So you think that legal skills / help should remain expensive?
  - j-bos 1mo ago
    "So you think {}" in the wild! =D Ty, and to answer your question: No. I'm commenting on a neat parallel. Personally I like the improvements that come from fairer games.
    - weakened_malloc 1mo ago
      It was a genuine question because I wasn't really understanding the point of your OP, apologies if it came off snarky.
      - j-bos 1mo ago
        All good :)
jackvalentine 1mo ago
> Is it any different to how it was previously? Before the age of AI, companies write all sorts of bullshit stuff into ToS or EULA which was neither enforceable or legal yet they routinely got away with it because Joe Schmoe had no ability to assess their arguments or fight back. Well yes, because we don't do that. You might be shocked to hear we don't even have a ToS or EULA and the relevant legislation acts as that for our purposes.
- weakened_malloc 1mo ago
  I was just using that as an example with the private sector, but my opinion is equivalent to the public sector. Democratising access to legal knowledge / help / assistance is a good thing, regardless of the effect it has on public services. Where you might see it as a deluge of AI slop - and I've got no doubt it is - I see the need for whatever part of the govt you're into improve their services. If the public is annoyed by how your service is being provided and they feel the need to send through AI generated privacy demands, that suggests the department you're in isn't doing a good job relative to your customer's expectations. Something needs to change; maybe have a page that allows people to delete accounts or whatever private information they're ALLOWED to delete, maybe the public needs to feel more reassured that their data is safe, or maybe it's something else. Whatever the reason, AI has placed pressure on you and your arm of government to meet the expectations of the public, pressure that didn't previously exist.
  - jackvalentine 1mo ago
    > Democratising access to legal knowledge / help / assistance is a good thing, regardless of the effect it has on public services. When the 'democratised access' means they're quoting laws from other countries, sometimes multiple other countries mashed together I don't think anyone is getting value out of it. We're not getting informed engagement from the public and the person making demands isn't getting any kind of valued legal assistance. We have always, and continue to have, thoughtful engagement from the public in the form of questions about our operations. This new thing is not that. It's wild. I take your point about there being an opportunity to be more proactively transparent or clear with people and I push for that a lot... but the sad fact is this new class of AI fuelled fervour really is just something else. It takes away our limited resources to do good work just to respond to it.