This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
New case law just dropped[^1]: a guy was charged with a $300M securities fraud. Before his arrest he used Claude (the consumer product) to research his own legal situation. He then handed the outputs to his defense counsel and claimed attorney-client privilege. The prosecutor said "no, that's not how this works, that's not how any of this works", and the judge agreed[^2]. That means that as of this decision, precedent says that if you go to chatgpt dot com and say "hey chatgpt, give me some" legal advice, that's not covered under attorney-client privilege.
On the one hand, duh. On the other hand, it really feels like there should be a way to use LLMs as part of the process of scalably getting legal advice from an actual attorney while retaining attorney-client privilege.
I expect there's an enormous market for "chat with an AI in a way that preserves attorney-client privilege", and as far as I can tell it doesn't exist.
It was also interesting to read the specific reasoning given for why attorney-client privilege was not in play:
I notice that none of these reasons are "conversations with AI are never covered by attorney-client privilege." They're all mechanical reasons why this particular way of using an AI doesn't qualify. Specifically:
The prosecutor also argues that feeding what your attorney told you into your personal Claude instance waives attorney-client privilege on those communications too. If a court were to agree with that theory, it would mean that asking your LLM of choice "explain to me what my lawyer is saying" is not protected by default under attorney-client privilege. That would be a really scary precedent.[^4]
Anyway, I expect there's a significant market for "ask legal questions to an LLM in a way that is covered by attorney-client privilege", so the obvious questions I had at this point were:
For question 1, I think the answer is "no" - a cursory google search[^5] mostly shows SEO spam from
So then the question is "why doesn't this exist" - it seems like it should be buildable. Engineering-wise it is pretty trivial. It's not quite "vibe code it in a weekend" level, but it's not much beyond that either.
After some back-and-forth with Claude, I am under the impression that the binding constraints are
None of these seem insurmountable to me. I'm picturing a workflow like
Anyone with a legal background want to chime in about whether this is a thing which could exist? (cc @faceh in particular, my mental model of you has both interest and expertise in this topic)
[^1]: [United States v. Heppner, No. 25 Cr. 503 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2026)] (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.652138/gov.uscourts.nysd.652138.22.0.pdf). The motion is well-written and worth reading in full. [^2]: Ruled from the bench on Feb 10, 2026: "I'm not seeing remotely any basis for any claim of attorney-client privilege." No written opinion yet.
[^3]: This argument feels flimsy, since attorneys send privileged communications through Gmail every day, and Google can and regularly does access email content server-side for reasons other than directly complying with a subpoena (e.g. for spam detection). It could be that the bit in Anthropic's TOS which says that they may train on or voluntarily disclose your chat contents to government authorities is load-bearing, which might mean that Claude could only be used for this product under the commercial terms, which don't allow training on or voluntary disclosure of customer data. I'm not sure how much weight this particular leg even carried, since Rakoff's bench ruling seems to have leaned harder on "Claude isn't your attorney."
[^4]: A cursory search didn't tell me whether the judge specifically endorsed this theory in the bench ruling. So I don't know if it is a very scary precedent, or just would be a really scary precedent.
[^5]: This may be a skill issue - I am not confident that my search would have uncovered anything even if it existed, because every search term I tried was drowned in SEO spam.
This doesn't seem like a good precedent. If you rent a book on law from the library and take notes to help your case, your notes aren't protected? Your lawyer can make the same notes and they are? How can you mount a legal defense by yourself without a lawyer if the opposition can just access your notes? This isn't planning a crime, this is mounting your defense.
It doesn't smell right. It also smacks of protectionism of the legal profession. Making a precedent like this to preserve a space for lawyers and judges into perpetuity.
I think this is true though? Why would your notes to yourself be any more protected than anything else you might write, like a manifesto or whatever?
If you google legal cases on your personal computer on your personal time, then the prosecutor will put it on a powerpoint to show the jury as evidence of your guilt. If you pay $500 an hour for a lawyer to do it though, then you're fine.
PS: Watch the whole video. It's probably the greatest opening statement I've ever seen.
Would your legal chances really be that much better if you start asking lawyers about dismembering your murder victims and disposing of evidence? I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like the crime-fraud exemption would presumably have applied in this sort of case. Are sleazy consigliere-types really common outside of Hollywood and TV fiction?
It does admittedly seem like some of the cases around the edges might be a bit fuzzy.
Generally speaking, yes. Suppose the authorities subpoenaed the phone records of a murder suspect and found that shortly after the murder had been committed, the suspect called an attorney and and a few lengthy phone calls. If these calls had been made at roughly the same time that the suspect was on television begging for help finding his missing family member, then obviously it would look suspicious, but what can the authorities do? If they call the attorney, it's very likely the attorney will decline to be interviewed. Even if the DA's office approves a subpoena, it's pretty likely that attorney will move to quash the subpoena and the motion will be granted. Knowing that this avenue of investigation is unlikely to be productive, it's doubtful that the authorities would even pursue it.
That being said, I think most attorneys would not be very helpful if they got the sense they were being used to help plan a crime. Or even if you asked questions about hypotheticals involving dismembered family members.
More options
Context Copy link
Common, maybe not. But lawyers with questionable ethics who will go to great lengths to protect clients for the right fee? Well, yeah. That's why there are some private criminal defense attorneys billing over $1k per hour and the clients don't blink at it.
More options
Context Copy link
I think your lawyer has the option to recuse themselves if they have clear proof you are guilty. They also have the duty not to lie, and not to attempt to deceive the court. So if you start talking to your lawyer about dismembering your murder victims, your lawyer is likely to try to persuade you to plead guilty and they will also refuse to do many of the things that they would do for you if your guilt were actually in doubt. You're pretty much sabotaging yourself.
See e.g. https://barristerblogger.com/advocacy-tips/ethics/
That said, asking something like ChatGPT for legal advice seems broadly like it shouldn't be used against you, at least unless you say something like 'I'm sure they'll never find two of the bodies, and the last one is going to be too rotten to identify, what's the call here?'.
Entirely incorrect for U.S. attorneys. I could have a client arrested for DUI who confessed to me that he dismembered his entire family and buried them in the crawlspace, and I could not divulge that information. Any discussion about past crimes is strictly privileged.
I do not get to withdraw from a case even if there is strong evidence my client is guilty and he confesses to me that he is guilty. If that were true, I wouldn't have much to do as a public defender. I have to defend the case to the best of my ability regardless of the strength of the evidence.
For future crimes, I am required to disclose anything my client says if I reasonably believe there is a realistic chance of physical harm coming to someone. I have the option, but am not required, to disclose statements from a client about future crimes that do not pose a risk of physical harm but some other kind of harm.
Understood, thank you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Damn, good call.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link