upvote

points

by consumer4517 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby lifeisloving6 hours ago|
next
[-]
I prefer all my data be in the hands of foriegn entities, they cant do anything to me. Id much rather Huawei spy on me than Meta (if I have no choice other than to pick one) There's literally no consequence of Huawei having my data. Unless you're a VIP, a chinese entity storing your data is probably better than a US company, as a westerner. It wont be used to manipulate you and will generally be used less adversarially against you.

I think part of the reason there's so much propaganda around chinese tech is to scare you away from possibly using them, not for your own safety, but so Meta/Google/MS ect dont lose access to the ability to spy on every aspect of your life.

I love how we have to pretend like China is some scary boogeyman because people on screens say they are.

reply
upvoteby tintor6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It will not protect you. China data brokers are generally not prevented from selling data on US people to US companies.
reply
upvoteby consumer4517 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
The parent's threat model reads to me like pure contrarianism, and not an actual threat model.

I don't mean geopolitically, but on a per-case basis. Let's think this all the way through in multiple actual scenarios... nope. Far worse than hiring a lawyer in your jurisdiction in multiple ways.

reply
upvoteby howunfortunate6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> I love how we have to pretend like China is some scary boogeyman because people on screens say they are.

I think you've lost the plot a bit on this one.

I'm scared of China because of their lack of democracy and the terrifying stuff they do to their own citizenry, which presumably they'd very much like to expand.

reply
upvoteby tuwtuwtuwtuw5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
So, you're all-in on Mistral then? Do they offer something similar to this?
reply
upvoteby forsalebypwner5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I couldn't agree more but feel that so many people on here consider themselves VIP that this won't be well-regarded
reply
upvoteby icase5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
>Unless you're a VIP, a chinese entity storing your data is probably better than a US company, as a westerner. It wont be used to manipulate you and will generally be used less adversarially against you.

you can't possibly be serious

reply
upvoteby dominicq6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I initially wanted to dislike this but it's actually genius hahaha
reply
upvoteby 5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby StrLght6 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
This sounds like a huge feature though? Basically, a digital attorney–client privilege.
reply
upvoteby rckoepke6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
There's no digital attorney-client privilege. If a lawyer uses LLM's on your behalf, the communications are protected. If you use the same LLM's on your own behalf, the chats are not protected.

DOJ could cut Z.ai off from US-based payment systems (Mastercard/Visa) if they don't comply with subpoenas.

reply
upvoteby xmcp1236 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
They could, but generally it is expected that before a subpoena is complied with it is checked to be compatible with the laws of the country it’s in, and requires cooperation from that country. Most often they are ignored if there’s not a presence/entity/assets in the US.

It’s also hard because no individual case would likely justify a move like that. It would have to be the sum of many, many cases.

reply
upvoteby tiahura5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Not every judge agrees with your statement of the law of privilege.
reply
upvoteby rckoepke4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Please link me to anyone pushing back against the precedent of US v. Heppner, S.D.N.Y. (2026). Would love to learn more! I'd rather not spout off on things that I'm not an expert on if I can help it, and I may have commented a bit fast above.
reply
upvoteby woodruffw6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
A key point of attorney-client privilege is that it's a feature of the legal system itself, not a technical or political hack.
reply
upvoteby post-it6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
More like attorney-client liability
reply
upvoteby A_D_E_P_T6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You got it wrong. If courts and attorneys in the US can't run "discovery" on Z.ai servers or compel them to do anything, and if Chinese authorities don't cooperate with the US legal system as a matter of principle, then what you functionally have is super privilege.
reply
upvoteby post-it6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They'll just run discovery on you. If you try to respond to a subpoena with "the documents are outside the country and I won't give them to you," the judge will throw you in jail until you do.
reply
upvoteby A_D_E_P_T6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You're right on this point. But there are ways to build interfaces that sidestep this.

Run a sanitized VDI with no local storage --> offshore independent entity (e.g. a Hong Kong Company) that holds the AI service contract and API license --> GLM-Legal.

Somebody ought to set this up for pro se work.

reply
upvoteby post-it6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yeah sure but your clever sidestep is just "hiding evidence from the court." The kind of person that feels the need to have a secret AI lawyer is also probably going to just tank their case in another way.
reply
upvoteby villish6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You should not trust any LLM to give you accurate legal advice. I can’t imagine all the ways that could go wrong.
reply
upvoteby j456 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Like pattern matching sentence algorithms many can reveal concepts and strategies to confirm independently
reply
upvoteby tuwtuwtuwtuw6 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Good luck to a EU person getting "US AI people" extradited. They aren't even put on trial in the US.
reply
upvoteby oblio6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
NATO allies can't even get US soldiers to trial. In Romania we've had cases of manslaughter and the US just shipped them back ASAP and at worst they were discharged dishonorably.
reply
upvoteby FuriouslyAdrift6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
For reference, that specific case is from 2004. Christopher Van Goethem was Marine security ambassadorial staff and was convicted in a military court martial for obstruction and making false statements. The whole case was porrly handled and the Romanians are right to be pissed. A key piece of evidence that would have landed him in jail for 10 years was the blood alcohol draw but the Marines slow walked it in Romania and he didn't show as intoxicated even though he admitted to drinking that night.
reply
upvoteby Phineas_here6 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
[flagged]
reply
upvoteby sieabahlpark6 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
[dead]
reply