There is something very concerning about this article: submitting private information to LLMs w/no privacy guarantees is probably a crime. I strongly recommend taking down this article and that you stop submitting private information to LLMs with no privacy guarantees until you have spoken with an informed lawyer on this matter.
Local models may be of assistance here, but you need to be very careful.
Unless OP is using hosted models, especially those with always-on training, that's quite clear cut breaking at least privacy laws, likely more, especially if the court documents are additionally protected.
So that's basically showing the HN how egregiously a number of lawyers, accountants and paralegals "conspire" to break the law in order to process more cases in parallel and earn more money.
I think that's pretty accurate?
If OPs father doesn't want to do it manually they must at least run it locally, or obtain the court permission to share the privileged information with a number of third parties, possibly shoving it into the future corpus of information.
Also, your comment is just trivially unininteresting to begin with: what is "submitting," what is "private," what is a "privacy guarantee," what is a "crime"? It's just outrage slop. If you're a lawyer and have something substantive to say, please do so (and a lot of lawyers on HN do), but otherwise, Lincoln put it best: "Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
Who are you (or who am I) to decide that? The entire point of a show HN is to be non-judgmental and charitable, otherwise it's just going to turn into a cynical echo-chamber. The famous Dropbox comment is a cautionary tale for a reason.
Regardless, I'm comfortable being a called fool.
I'm not trying to gatekeep and say that only domain experts should be allowed to build software, but part of being an engineer is doing due diligence to understand the domain well enough to build the product. If OP failed to recognize that any forensic accountant that gets caught uploading privileged documents into a random AI tool would be both breaking the chain of possession of that document AND client privilege, what other mistakes did they make along the way?
I went through the entire website and couldn't find a single mention about privacy. I'm not a domain expert, but I would expect the product site for any legal tool to at least have a disclaimer.
> Person A: yo wtf is wrong with you
> Person B: Who are you (or who am I) to decide that? The entire point of a show HN is to be non-judgmental and charitable, otherwise it's just going to turn into a cynical echo-chamber. The famous Dropbox comment is a cautionary tale for a reason.