Sam Altman warns there's no legal confidentiality using ChatGPT as a therapist

techcrunch.com

11 points·badmonster··6 comments

I recently watched a video that discussed a company where lawyers who hadn't kept up their bar membership were acting as paralegals. The host mentioned that without an active bar membership, attorney-client privilege was no longer available.

I think it's crazy that my legal protections are dependent on the licensing status of the person I am talking to. It should be automatic, whenever anyone I'm talking to is acting as an attorney or a therapist or a clergyman or whatever else is protected.

To do otherwise, and force me to verify the license status of the person I am talking to is protectionism at its finest.

Attorney client privilege partly has to do with the licenced attorney having some protection from the state regarding the information they hold. If that protection was extended to everyone you would have a very different legal system (I have no idea if it would be better or worse).

It exists for clergy. They can offer advice, just like a lawyer or a counselor, and any state-mandated licensing board would likely be deemed unconstitutional.

Of course. Even if you're paying for it, you're still the product. You are training data.

If you pay for the API, you are not training data unless you opt in.

Are you sure about that? I know the agreement says thst, but you would you be shocked if they trained on paying client data?

It's not like OpenAI has a rich and storied history of respecting legal agreements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com