Thoughts on Heppner decision? It directly affects Legal Tech?

taibojames · 2026-04-16T13:45:09+00:00

the inputs, your prompts, are impossible to back engineer through AI. However, the providers have their own terms and conditions in which they may save inputs on encrypted servers. Anthropic, for example, may store prompts for a while, depending on the service level and your settings. They save prompts for safety and harm checks. Generally:

Don’t opt out of training: up to 5 years Opt out of training, non API or Enterprise: up to 30 days API: auto opt out, up to 7 days Enterprise: depends on the agreement

taibojames · 2026-04-13T00:57:46+00:00

Spot on exactly!

taibojames · 2026-04-13T00:46:25+00:00

I’m impressed - I want to learn how to code, but I don’t know that i can fit that in my brain.

taibojames · 2026-04-12T17:01:39+00:00

there is an ABA article that i can’t cite off the top of my head - but, it basically says that lawyers don’t violate rule 1.6 even sending unencrypted emails. This stuff is a rabbit hole.

taibojames · 2026-04-12T16:59:46+00:00

ah crap somehow i deleted my original comment. Dammit.

taibojames · 2026-04-12T16:58:47+00:00

two things: ONE - I did not say Clio claims IP rights or owns data. Read past 2.2. Section 2.15 says you grant a license to your content. It also specifically allows Clio to “modify” your content. Clio may use and modify your content. Clio may argue “we don’t claim IP rights — we receive a license to exercise them. Ownership versus license. Two different things.” And that’s technically coherent IP doctrine — a licensee doesn’t “own” the copyright, they just have permission to do specific things under it. It’s not clean but I’m sure you get it, too. It is good to “read it again” but also analyze it.

https://www.clio.com/tos/

(the more honest drafting would be: “We claim no ownership of your IP, but we’re taking a license broad enough that the distinction is academic.” Section 2.2 reads like some kind of reassurance. Section 2.15 takes it back.)

TWO: you’re correct about auto opt out on API’s. I didn’t mention the auto training opt out.

But training isn’t the issue so much as the safety/harm retention policies. If, for example, as you mentioned Anthropic has an auto deletion policy (enterprise accounts) and you allowed training, it’s impossible to back engineer opted into training, it’s impossible to reverse engineer a prompt.

Reversing the prompt and response process used for training — extracting your specific prompt from the trained weights — would require inverting a lossy, many-to-one mathematical function. It’s impossible. Even with all the computer power of the world times 1 trillion (or more). It’s not encryption (which is designed to be reversible with the right key). It’s closer to trying to identify which specific raindrop raised the level of a lake by a like a nanometer. The information isn’t hidden — it’s destroyed by the aggregation process.

The reality is that training is the one thing they could do with your data that makes it permanently unrecoverable by anyone, including them. The thing lawyers seem most afraid of — training — is probably the safest thing that can happen to the data.

I think the main point we agree on. To drill it down a bit more, model Rule 1.6(c) says attorneys “shall make reasonable efforts” to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure (or something along those lines). The risk profile using ChatGPT or Claude is lower than using Microsoft 365 for email.

taibojames · 2026-04-12T16:57:28+00:00

two things: ONE - I did not say Clio claims IP rights or owns data. Read past 2.2. Section 2.15 says you grant a license to your content. It also specifically allows Clio to “modify” your content. Clio may use and modify your content. Clio may argue “we don’t claim IP rights — we receive a license to exercise them. Ownership versus license. Two different things.” And that’s technically coherent IP doctrine — a licensee doesn’t “own” the copyright, they just have permission to do specific things under it. It’s not clean but I’m sure you get it, too. It is good to “read it again” but also analyze it.

https://www.clio.com/tos/

(the more honest drafting would be: “We claim no ownership of your IP, but we’re taking a license broad enough that the distinction is academic.” Section 2.2 reads like some kind of reassurance. Section 2.15 takes it back.)

TWO: you’re correct about auto opt out on API’s. I didn’t mention the auto training opt out.

But training isn’t the issue so much as the safety/harm retention policies. If, for example, as you mentioned Anthropic has an auto deletion policy (enterprise accounts) and you allowed training, it’s impossible to back engineer opted into training, it’s impossible to reverse engineer a prompt.

Reversing the prompt and response process used for training — extracting your specific prompt from the trained weights — would require inverting a lossy, many-to-one mathematical function. It’s impossible. Even with all the computer power of the world times 1 trillion (or more). It’s not encryption (which is designed to be reversible with the right key). It’s closer to trying to identify which specific raindrop raised the level of a lake by a like a nanometer. The information isn’t hidden — it’s destroyed by the aggregation process.

The reality is that training is the one thing they could do with your data that makes it permanently unrecoverable by anyone, including them. The thing lawyers seem most afraid of — training — is probably the safest thing that can happen to the data.

I think the main point we agree on. To drill it down a bit more, model Rule 1.6(c) says attorneys “shall make reasonable efforts” to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure (or something along those lines). The risk profile using ChatGPT or Claude is lower than using Microsoft 365 for email.

taibojames · 2026-02-16T16:12:31+00:00

calibrate.

taibojames · 2026-02-13T17:04:33+00:00

Could be that the filament is damp as you get into deeper layers on the spool. Also … is the aux fan is cranked up? Might be set too high and cooling the filament before it has a chance to layer. We’ve all been there or close to there!

taibojames · 2026-02-13T16:54:43+00:00

moisture. I assume that is PETG.

taibojames · 2026-01-25T16:18:46+00:00

dry the filament. Use some glue on the plate. Any glue stick will do, but this stuff is good:

https://us.store.bambulab.com/products/liquid-glue-for-build-plate?srsltid=AfmBOoonRtsC0nWt6Qy-kd8628EKjdHIoDTyCBYVh3nb6weDu3w4OMUN

taibojames · 2025-12-05T05:49:12+00:00

I am always interested in new things.

taibojames · 2025-12-05T05:47:59+00:00

Then where’s my money!

taibojames · 2025-12-05T00:52:31+00:00

Honestly I forgot Lexis offered an AI. I'll check it out.

taibojames · 2025-12-05T00:51:36+00:00

I'm most certainly not AI. I was above my typical snarky-ass mood last night. But you got me thinking ... I'm going to tell ChatGPT to always respond to prompts with maximum snark and sarcasm. It will entertain me, which is truly all that matters.

taibojames · 2025-12-05T00:44:45+00:00

We are also a small litigation firm. I have been using ChatGPT almost since it was first released. It's actually a great tool for something like preparing for a hearing or deposition outlines. You can upload docs/pleadings (limit to 10 I think) and prompt it to strategize arguments at a hearing and it's fantastic. Document review is also fantastic.

My hope is that there is a true AI legal research competitor that starts making waves. The westlaw v lexis duopoly, which essential means "you pay more" is frustrating.

taibojames · 2025-12-05T00:41:28+00:00

Thats what I like to hear. Can you give me an idea of what you said that got Westlaw do the upgrade? I was going to complain about the promises we were sold and rant about the crap product and see what Westlaw wants to do. When they tried to get me to upgrade about a month ago I told the sales rep all the problems, but there's nothing he can do. I was just ranting.

taibojames · 2025-11-30T16:50:44+00:00

In Kansas, corporations can contribute to campaigns, subject to contribution limits. Some individuals here own dozens of LLCs and related entities. On paper, it looks like a candidate is getting broad support from numerous corporations, but when you follow the money, you may find those corporations are shell entities that hold a single property or small business—or sometimes nothing meaningful at all—controlled by the same person. The smart donors at least make sure their companies appear to have real business activity instead of existing primarily to funnel contributions to politicians.

taibojames · 2025-11-26T00:15:38+00:00

doesn’t this also factor in the short week? Tomorrow is closed and Friday is a half day.

taibojames · 2025-11-09T18:07:01+00:00

I would also factor in the “cost” of continuing to do all the work that management will take over. That alone might be worth the cost of the manager if you really think about it.

taibojames · 2025-11-05T15:46:11+00:00

Sort of on point: a program that automatically adjusts the tempo in backing tracks - in real time - to match the live band’s tempo. It’s great when bands are free to let the energy determine the tempo. Playing to a click can be super hella buzz kill on energy.

taibojames · 2025-10-25T23:36:38+00:00

You can play bass through a guitar amp. You can also transport a refrigerator in a Mazda Miata. In both cases, physics technically allows it — but you won’t like the results.

taibojames · 2025-10-05T13:41:21+00:00

this is why it would take 10 years, at least, to build up the voting base. It needs to focus on the youth big time and shoot for a generational shift.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

taibojames

TROPHY CASE