So, for many countries, it's not just that sealed documents are not accessible, many people in traditional democracies couldn't imagine and bear this level of publicity for every court document like you have in the US.
The difference is quite subtle in common law v. continental law systems.
In continental traditions, nobody really says a higher court decision is binding in the same sense as they do in common law. But even in common law, lower courts have the power to distinguish a case from a binding decision from a higher court. Or later courts may state that a particular argument used by a judge in the higher court was just 'obiter dicta' and not part of the 'ratio decidendi'. In continental systems, for most court processes, higher courts do have a strong persuasive power without formal binding (sometimes it may be stronger than your average "obiter dicta" in common law). So, there is a whole spectrum in obiter dicta as well.
This decision was a preliminary injunction only from Landgericht Munich - you will have a final injunction order:
https://the-decoder.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/26_O_869_2...
In Germany, you also have the Oberlandesgericht and the Bundesgerichtshof as a higher venue for civil cases (and the Constitutional Court as well).
So, this is not like "the law has changed" at all.
(I'm not a German qualified lawyer, but qualified in a close enough continental system, and on my way to be qualified in a common law jurisdiction soon, that's why I dare to comment on this aspect)
Before suing all your coworkers for garnishing their wages, I suggest you first consider how much fun you will have when you have to pay for the legal costs of the other party. But you will find that out for yourself.
Anyways, I don't think it's your choice whether you want to take on huge law firms - that's usually the other party's choice.
(I do hope most security researchers have a bit more training than "some education".)
are you not aware of the american rule and small claims? im not trying to take down coca cola here or doing frivolous lawsuits. if you catch your employer and coworker stealing your laptop, refuse to give it back eventually coming back with a rootkit then I'm absolutely willing to take this all the way and obviously real experts will be brought on board.
companies are rational actors they arent going to spend $800/hr on some partner
to defend a $5000 billing dispute or a garnishment hearing for an ex coworker when my
cost basis to generate the 20 page complaint and discovery requests using the
API is literally under a hundred bucks.
my point isn't that people pursue this pipeline its that frontier models provide a great equalizer. you can bet that patent trolls and saul goodman type of lawyers are using the same tools.
what is scary isnt that these models will hallucinate or whatever (those are harness issues) its the amount of formality and complexity navigating processes with rigid schedules and verbosity that can cause context drift.
so this isn't just some "press a button let muh agents lawyer" its far more involved and frankly extremely tedious.
If you involve a lawyer only for the final review, they will understand you don't want them to rethink your approach nor to advise a different strategy. So, they will just bill you for the time, which seems to be fine for both parties of the trade.
And, where it's mandatory to have a law firm draft a deed or a contract (like for mortgage or real estate transactions, depending on the state you're in), your Claude-made first draft will not make your bill lower.
Just don't try to rely on this for adversarial work, like in litigation.
BTW, just curious about the timing: how could Claude for Legal save you thousands of dollars at your last company if the product came out in February? (Not that Claude for Legal is any special in its legal output compared to "ordinary" Claude)
> If you involve a lawyer only for the final review, they will understand you don't want them to rethink your approach nor to advise a different strategy
These were enterprise contracts where the other company made the contract. It was basically negotiating specific points of the contract. Claude legal called out a few areas that were disadvantageous to us, and then prepared redlines to send back. The same thing my lawyer was doing for me before I switched to using Claude, except I was waiting a week for each turnaround and paying for a few hours of billable hours every time.
> BTW, just curious about the timing: how could Claude for Legal save you thousands of dollars at your last company if the product came out in February?
Negotiating bespoke enterprise contracts can get expensive, especially when the other party is a huge corporation with a big legal team and a lot of time on their hands. And only the latest product came out in February, there were other products before that.
I don't understand how different this startup is from established, non-John Deere segments, like MTZ?
Definitely low tech and around the same price as the startup:
https://www.mtzequipment.com/products/tractors
The Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) has adopted a technical guide for lawyers on the use of GenAI.
It is addressed to lawyers and bars/law societies (which, in most countries, also regulate lawyers).
It is a clear and deliberate step to educate legal professionals on more technical matters that were previously rarely a focus of their training.
The purpose of the paper is to better acquaint lawyers with their options, including the possibility of using local models and understanding the trade-offs.
CCBE was created by the bars/law societies as a representative body of the profession in Brussels, to whom the EU institutions can turn.
I believe this is an important step in toward better dissemination of the use of AI models.
What makes it notable is the level of technical detail that will hopefully help lawyers formulate what they need - comparing the options of on-premises, colocation, IaaS or fully managed/API), and giving indicative hardware budgets (dated September 2025) ranging from ~€2,000 to €20,000 for local inference boxes. It also discusses quantisation (FP16 vs INT8 vs INT4), context-length trade-offs, and tokens-per-second thresholds for interactive use.
Curious to hear your views on whether there is any point in going in this direction. Or if you believe anything important is missing or incorrect.
They both work in the same market but they have pretty different careers and understandings.
I simply can't believe why on Earth would people choose Altman over Amodei to trust in these kind of pretty important questions.
This is not about who is the more savvy investor maximizing shareholder value. I personally don't care whose company grows bigger or goes bust first, OpenAI or Anthropic.
The real stakes are different, and Amodei is better suited to be trusted in his decision.
Unfortunately, the best choices do not seem to fit well with either the federal political climate or the mainstream business ethics in Silicon Valley.
Not that our opinion would matter...
Amodei believed Altman, so there's that. I don't (have to) believe either. If product works for me, it works. Raising their clanker products to second coming is for investor relations, of which I am proud to day I am not.
In a movie, I'd definitely involve Ötzi as well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi). Ötzi was found like 30 km from the impact site. And could have been a contemporary.
E.g., he cursed the guy who shot him and whose village is struck by a meteor in the end.
The plot thickens: a commenter here posted this link, which indicates Ötzi might have been roped in to this story in quite an imaginative way:
"Despite this new evidence, curiously in 2008 the impact hypothesis was revived by some pseudoscientists in connection to supposed observations of a meteorite by the Sumerians or to explain the death of the Iceman as a human sacrifice to prevent a nuclear winter after the impact."
Ötzi and his killers might have been up there looking for the impact site, there might have been a mad rush to find the impact, they might have seen it as some sort of holy item worth killing for.
There was after all a sun cult in Europe at this time.
And we have recovered an iron dagger made from a meteorite in the 14th century BCE. So this phenomenon of tracking a meteorite impact site and finding it might go much further back in human history.
Hrm. Maybe. Though I have to wonder from how far afar, considering the energy of this thing. Be it scorched by its heat, blinded by its light, or ruptured lungs from the sonic boom it must have made over a long and wide track, leaving not that many survivors in that track. Try to find a 'best of' of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor from 2013 on YT, or elsewhere, and watch what that little thing did.
Some witnesses are speaking of the heat they felt on their faces.
Now compare the size of that thing which is assumed to be schoolbus-like at the most, with what's assumed for the 'Köfels impact'. I think it was about one kilometer.
I don't understand: if there is a shortage of doctors, why are we trying to solve that by training AI models modelled on influencers that spits out (hopefully improving) advice at 10x the rate of a human doctor? Is it impossible for highly advanced societies like ours to pay more for people to get trained as doctors, nurses or whatever is missing? Or to convince them to choose a profession that deals with other humans instead of UBI?
I don't think people are afraid of doctors using imperfect tools. That is the easier part. But that will not solve the problem of too many patients for a single doctor and what leads to the lack of empathy. This was a problem even before AI. It seems society does not have empathy for these kind of "professional problems". Offering tools instead of humans is an even riskier approach, not for that particular individual, but for how society tends to build trust and empathy.
We tend to see everything now as a problem with a technical solution because we only have confidence in solving technical problems.
Shortages of doctors have many causes that differ based on the country. While paying them more may help in some countries you also have to figure out how to convince doctors to live in smaller towns and cities and in less desirable provinces/states within a country. The source of the problem is that doctors are people and people have their own preferences and motivations for doing the things they do. Trying to convince even a handful of above average competency doctors to live in a remote region with bad weather and few amenities for more than a few years will be extremely difficult even if you offer them large sums of money (which aren't generally available anyways) because they have to weigh their own health and happiness in the balance when deciding where to live and practice.
I don't see how this is possible with the use of the state or not. I mean, I can throw out some ridiculous sci-fi ideas like geo-engineering and megaprojects that give every region the perfect balance of temperate seasons, agricultural productivity and variety, access to functional and esthetically pleasing waterways and pastoral landscapes that would make them all equally attractive places for people to live but that's just the definition of a utopia that will never exist.
You're also just copping out by saying "the state should handle it", who and what do you think the state is? It may come as a surprise that it's just a bunch of people who are just as imperfect and limited in their abilities as the rest. They can't simply wave their hands and make everyone happy. It make about as much sense as saying "Microsoft should handle it" or "the Catholic Church should handle it".
There are lots of places that are "desirable" to a large-enough-to-be-relevant portion of the population, but not as large a portion as the portion of the population that wants to be doctors. And they may like living there for reasons that someone who is drawn to a career in medicine might be unlikely to share.
>Is it impossible for highly advanced societies like ours to pay more for people to get trained as doctors, nurses or whatever is missing? Or to convince them to choose a profession that deals with other humans instead of UBI?
This is the point where it becomes important to distinguish two senses of "advanced", i.e. advanced in technological sense on the one hand and advanced in social/societal and especially large-group-long-time-horizon coordination terms on the other. In the former we are quite advanced, in the latter quite primitive and regressing by the day, it feels like. (But sorry to end on a doomer note, take it with a grain of salt.)
> if there is a shortage of doctors, why are we trying to solve that by training AI models modelled on influencers that spits out (hopefully improving) advice at 10x the rate of a human doctor?
The crucial part is the training. AI may very well be the solution for underserved communities, but not if it is trained on internet rubbish. Train an AI on curated state-of-the-art, scientific data, imagine the expert systems of yore on overdrive, and you will see much better results, including knowing when to call in a human doctor.
Making new doctors takes decades, lots of policy changes with uncertain outcomes, and demographic shifts nobody controls.
Using ChatGPT takes... nothing, it's already here.
Not too surprising to see one and not the other.
Also, the kinds of changes that result in more doctors don't tend to get media coverage. That's that boring, keep the lights on, politics that modern rage-bait driven media abhors, so it may even still be true that the changes we need for more doctors are also already happening. We'll find out in another decade or two.
I remember as a kid being ill, you just called the doctor and they came to your house the same day, and you could just go to the doctor's practice hours without an appointment and sit their waiting your turn.
Now, I have to book an appointment online and the first available slot is in 2 weeks if lucky.
Who is “we” here? Your healthcare needs are fulfilled by corporations, they are by design looking for scalable solutions with less human involved as possible.
Losing brand control (IP) and lack of control over your sales channels is a big problem for traders who want to comply with dozens of regulations, exclusions and restrictions required by manufacturers, other sellers, trademark owners etc. The article also mentions means tax and customs compliance problems, but this also affects other trade law related issues, like competition law problems (antitrust). It is surprisingly easy to breach these even for tiny sellers. You don't want exposure to these kinds of sales. It is never just selling, it is always also complying with lots of new laws, And rest assured, Amazon bots will not work that out for you.
And now, these guys have to scrutinize the email orders as for their source because all the compliance process they have built in their webshops or wherever they advertised, will simply be bypassed by Amazon bots.
Terrible idea.
And for non-common law jurisdictions, even the UK level of publicity of judgments is rarely available - anonymisation is a prerequisite: https://homoki.net/en/2024/02/01/On_Anonymisation_of_court_d...
So, for many countries, it's not just that sealed documents are not accessible, many people in traditional democracies couldn't imagine and bear this level of publicity for every court document like you have in the US.
reply