This makes sense but then the outcome of this is all theatrical. What will happen in future is that people have their visas revoked without any comments or reason given. There is no legal requirement to list a reason. It will end up the same as employment law, where people can discriminate and break the law as long as they don't tell the applicant they are doing so.
Yes, but he's still using it to prepare his legal arguments and to understand the law.
The reason attorney-client communication is privileged is so that people won't interfere in people's preparation of their case, not because the lawyer is magic. The principled thing is for the courts to apply principles like this based on the principle.
According to the ruling’s citations, the purpose of the privilege is to provide protection for the mind of the advocate. If you’re not the advocate and you’re not talking to the advocate the privilege doesn’t apply. Should-bes in this case are imponderable to me but that appears to be what-is.
Yes, I think that's completely wrong. It focuses on the advocate as some kind of special role, but I think the core problem is preparing for a court case, and I don't think it makes sense to focus on him.
I think an accused should be able to make strategy notes for a court case and be able to have those be secret from the prosecution, and to look up things for these purposes, and, to use Google docs etc. if he so wants.
I also see that some other comments describe that work product has previously been treated as a broader notion with less focus on the advocate and more on preparing for the court case, so I'm far from convinced this has been decided correctly.
I understand why you feel that way, but the current policy is not in the direction you are hoping for. The important thing to understand is that all evidence is available by default, that privilege covers the exceptions to that availability. Privilege is construed narrowly, and for now, communications with your advocate, or notes prepared at the request of your advocate, are the sorts of things that are covered. Your own private notes, or chats with your friends about the state of your case, are examples of things that are not covered.
Work product was treated more broadly in one case by a lower magistrate court, but the court making the decision in this case is not bound by that lower court's ruling. What will be interesting is if this ruling gets appealed up to the sups. I doubt the decision will be overruled in any case.
But the actual rule for civil cases (federal rules of civil procedure) is
>(A) Documents and Tangible Things. Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent). But, subject to Rule 26(b)(4), those materials may be discovered if:
So the "by or for another party or its representative" seems more like my thinking than the thinking you're describing.
I think considering other statements, Rakoff is certainly wrong. The documents were prepared as part of pretrial preparations. Non-experts need to be able to use search engines, books, etc. and which books someone was handed for their pretrial preparations, or what lookups they have made can't be the business of their opponents. You have an adversarial system. One party can't have access to the pretrial preparations of the other party, it won't lead to fair trials.
I don't think it's communication at all. Instead, I think it's a kind of lookup. Dealing with an LLM is searching a database. You are looking up legal texts in order to prepare legal arguments.
I think the principled way of treating this is that it's privileged for the purpose of preparing legal arguments, but not privileged in general. I think this can be supported using the existing law.
Presumably a lawyer's Google searches with terms like "what article is X" etc. are privileged too, since they are used for preparing legal arguments. That it uses AI doesn't suddenly make it communication.
Here in Sweden, political violence by the farmer class ensured that by the end of the pre-democracy era, self-owning farmers held 50% of the land, whereas in Denmark, it was only 10%.
This was due to violence, serious, organized war-like violence; and yes, of course the government brought in mercenaries, noble forces, etc. but fighting the farmer class had a substantial cost, and that they were willing to impose that cost gave them better conditions.
Killing guys at the bottom is very different from killing somebody at the top. If people are killing activists, journalists etc. that is always oppression. If people are killing people at the top it can be either way, depending on whether they are put there by some large grass-roots phenomenon or are trying to run society from the top of a pyramid, but in your argument you are placing these things as equal, you say:
>If CEOs getting killed is normal, then activists against those companies getting killed is normal too
and this is false. It is so false I don't quite understand how anyone can write it.
Yes, but that later stuff can't happen without destabilization, and that's what this kind of thing does.
>It’s deeply precedented.
Ah, we are confused about what we mean. You mean that workers, activists etc. will be killed. I mean that their killing is oppression, whereas the killing of non-grassroots supported people at the top of power pyramids, isn't.
But that isn't the point: you are in fact right, I am right too, but the thing I want to say is: the oppression of workers, activists, journalists etc. that might be triggered by the destabilizing violence is necessary in order to get the reaction.
When a person who understands destabilization does it, he of course wants to trigger this oppression, and for that oppression to trigger the organized war-like stuff.
Here in Sweden, back in the 1400eds etc. the farmers often made war on the government whenever it did anything they didn't like. This had the long term consequence, that by the end of this era, self-owning farmers owned 50% of the land in Sweden, whereas in Denmark, which did not have this kind of violence, it was only 10%.
It's incredibly important to be feared and to engage in violence, so that you are in practice and can threaten your political opponents, and this remains true in a democracy.
It's important that powerful people know they can't trust that they will truly be protected by the laws if they do something which harms others-- that the veneer of civilization is thin and the masses dangerous. Otherwise you end up with very dangerous situations where people can get away with anything that's legal.
Yes. They won't become genuinely important themselves, but they will still upset the balance between workers and capital owners, creating a more extreme situation that we have now.
Why do you think so in the specific case of hypothetical improved LLMs that can do a large fraction of the kind of intellectual work humans are tasked with?
I think in such a state, there will no way up, not way to success, no way to real autonomy for ordinary people, maybe you'll even have actual oligarchal rule, since so few people do anything contributing to the economy with their labour.
Really, I don't know. But there is that underappreciated concept of "elastic demand" which I will gesture at even though I'm only casually acquainted with it. It's related to the vernacular fallacy of the economic Pie, as if it's a static thing that doesn't grow and shrink. I suspect, as the cost of producing things, including intellectual, knowledge-based products goes down, that we may just end up demanding more of these things, or better kinds.
I might look at the example of AI art. Artists were/are freaking out about it, worried that they'd lose business. I think they probably have, for some of the more utility cases for art like promotional material. However, a lot of the new consumers of AI art were not buying human art before. Some of the people making little personal projects, posting YouTube videos, making indie games, would never have paid artists to make assets for their things because it wouldn't be worth the money. I have personal experience with this on the consumer side.
Of course, when AI can do what you do for a job, it won't just be attracting currently unpaying, potential customers. Still, I'm not too confident our predictive skills as a society to say what will or won't happen. Like has happened before, many situations and opportunities will arise that will be utterly unanticipated.
Why do you think that the fact that the alternative is unthinkable is a reason it won't happen?
Are you also sure that it is unthinkable to those running these companies? I wouldn't be surprised if these models end up being used for internal security-- that people would try to keep an extremely unequal society stable by surveillance and massive analysis capabilities. I think it's apparent that some use of this sort already occurs and that these companies are already participating.
Yes, but isn't the "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why" actually correct, so that we should say something like "one pervert king liked watching women give birth and that's why people have done it this very, very silly way"?
I don't really agree, because these kings really had a say and people basically worshiped them. People imitate all sorts of things from how the kings and the courts did things, things like not buttoning the lowest button on their jackets, etc., so I think it may well have had a substantial influence.
knowing and thinking / assuming are two different things. Saying that "that's why people have done it" is simply and categorically wrong.
It is no doubt something that could prove interesting if shared when presenting the research (e.g. I went down this route, find this weird thing here, that unusual story there) but this article does accompany you through that process, it just presents the findings which makes the inclusion of this fact quite questionable.
Similarly, the US government can revoke someone's visa, but they can't revoke someone's visa because of speech protected by the first amendment.
reply