Flutterby™! : United States v. Heppner

Good read on why conversations with LLMs aren't protected as attorney-client privilege: Elizabeth X Guo writing in the Harvard Law Review re United States v. Heppner.

The Heppner court assumed sub silentio that Claude was more like a non- attorney human than a tool. One might reasonably question that assumption. On the very same day of Judge Rakoff’s oral decision, the district court for the Eastern District of Michigan (in a civil case concerning work-product protection for a pro se litigant’s ChatGPT- generated materials) emphasized that “ChatGPT (and other generative AI programs) are tools, not persons” and represent “a litigant’s internal mental impressions reformatted though software.”