Raw LLM Responses

I'm not discounting what your saying btw, and I agree we shouldn't be basically able to open the box where individuals are having private discussions about legal matters. I do think the argument for expunging attorney client privilege is probably formed on an analogical argument the government uses to say the 4th amendment doesn't apply. They call it it third party doctrine : " The third-party doctrine asserts that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for voluntarily shared information. The Fourth Amendment safeguards individuals' rights to security in their persons, homes, documents, and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures. Recently, however, the interpretation of this Amendment has evolved. "  Legal analysts have already begun to see issues with smart technology  "Not so with the smart home. In the home enhanced by artificial intelligence, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in data shared with third parties like Amazon."  "Amendment has taken on new meaning. Today, we mail our DNA – the very essence of our persons – to 23andMe. We rely on Alexa in our houses, and her always-on microphone to make life easier. We store our papers and effects on the Cloud, in Gmail, and on Dropbox.  "  In respect of the third party test - the supreme court has begun to narrow it, because of how widely technology is becoming integrated in our lives + the fact voluntariness is beginning to be muted therefore argument people are willingly doing x, when they may have no meaningful choice, undermines the doctrine. But yeah, the AI chatlog cases, the sides seeking disclosure are just applying an species of the third party doctrine.