Discussion about this post

User's avatar
gwern's avatar

Step #1 seems to be a problem. For a LLM to know what you need to obfuscate and are most vulnerable to, presumably you would need to be explicit. But now you have a written trace which will be stored in records, and especially in finance, this will be legally required to be retained indefinitely; your chats will no longer show up in Matt Levine's newsletter, but your T1 LLM prompts... And if you switch to something like voice input, regulators may just require you to record *that* - because they now can! (As Levine points out, the move from in-person or telephone calls to text-based chat and email has resulted in a staggering increase in legibility to prosecutors.) Nor would this be theoretical: as soon as the first T1 shows up and guarantees a loss in a high-profile trial or lawsuit, now *every* prosecutor or lawyer worth their salt will prioritize looking for T1s in discovery. The only really secure T1 remains in places where it would be impossible to demand: inside your head or in person discussions.

Expand full comment
Leo Abstract's avatar

Whoa, wait a minute. Are we entering a golden age of plausible deniability?

Will lawyers as a bloc allow this to happen?

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts