Parent comment was asking about attorney-client privilege which means there's an attorney in the communication loop. If the person using a tool is an attorney, then that communication should be protected whether it's by pen or keyboard. But this is an active area of legislation and jurisprudence in relation to AI. I expect some important cases will happen
> If the person using a tool is an attorney, then that communication should be protected whether it's by pen or keyboard.
But the tool is not your attorney, so it can't be the originator of attorney-client privilege. The situation is no different than if you get informal legal advice from a friend: even if that friend is an attorney, the communication is unprivileged unless it's part of a formal representation.
What if a user puts an email from their attorney into chatgpt so they can ask questions about it to better understand it? Surely the email would still be covered but maybe the questions and answers wouldn't be?
Or what if your phone automatically generates a summary of your attorneys text message, would that be covered?
Just because they have a lawyer does not mean things like their browser history and every other example in the comment I replied to would not be permitted as evidence...
Except for something like specifically looking up a lawyer
