I'm sure there something in the hundreds of pages of Microsoft o365 about "we may share your data with third-parties" blah blah...

Yes, so the lawyer can use AI to answer your questions and then the judge can discover that, since there isn't attorney-bot privilege. :/

Self-hosted, local only models are probably going to obviate a lot of this.

Google AI Edge Gallery now runs Gemma-4-E2B-it locally on an iPhone after a 2.5Gb download.

No network calls needed, claims Google.

Self-hosting is always a strong option for privacy seeking people, as it should be.

I wonder if a legal firm could setup a privately hosted LLM then claim attorney-client privilege as a rendered service.

Would a judge be able to demand the attorney hand over written notes from his clients?

I doubt it.

The question would be would decent lawfirms stake their reputation and legal risk providing legal advice from an LLM they host directly to their clients? Sounds like a great way for your clients to sue you when their cases go sideways by odd outputs from your LLM.

Does this mean I can tell my team to stop requesting CoPilot code reviews on my pull requests?

Why is it that every legitimate concern or downside pointed out about AI is met with the same tired, low signal, rebuttal of FOMO.

It's become the "no u r" argument of the AI age... :/

Because the AI apologists cannot deal with the much studied and proven placebo effect of perceived increased productivity, so they have to try and make themselves feel better by claiming that others are lagging behind in a race no one else is really interesting in running.

A snake oil scheme if ever saw one.

Customers keep buying those trucks though. Why wouldn't you sell a product to a market that continues to purchase?

There are smaller, cheaper trucks, suvs, sedans, etc. $100k trucks make a lot of money, so Ford keeps building them.

Ford could sell 15k EVs, they just choose not to.

Why should ford be protected from Chinese car manufacturers who can make better and cheaper cars.

A 143 kWh battery pack alone costs around $10k. I don’t think they can realistically sell $15k EV trucks.

Insta-banned in the US for "national security", not because it's a better car than anything the US can produce. /s

In principle, you are right. Cheaper than coal renewables are winning. Don't forget though, that fighter jets can't operate on batteries.

Every mile you drive in an f150 steals fuel that should be going to American planes

Patriotic red blooded Americans use renewable energy

> fighter jets can't operate on batteries

Gas turbines can run on a variety of fuels, natural, synthetic or a mixture of both. It’s actually one of the reasons that a turbine was chosen for the M1.

Yeah but gas turbines by definitions run on "gas" kerosene based fuel. If you're talking about a battery powered fan or prop that's very different.

Kerosene is a mundane chemical.

It is made with from water, carbon dioxide and energy. Use green energy and atmospheric CO2, and it is carbon neutral.

They don’t contribute enough to matter

And using more electrics powered transport in other sectors frees up fossil fuels for other sectors.

That’s a red herring. It’s not worth mentioning.

Except for the industries where it does matter. Trivializing the needs of complex and energy hungry supply chains, is bad faith. They are one of the many reasons fossil fuels are so widely used.

It's not really bad faith when we could make enormous progress in an enormous number of industries, and this in no way stops any of that progress in those economies.

It's specifically bad faith to say it as if it does somehow matter in the grand conversation, when the actual fallout is extremely small. Pretty much nobody is saying we must remove 100 PER CENT OF ALL FOSSIL FUEL USAGE EVERYWHERE FOREVER, just that we need to move off it.

In the end, the industries that cannot run on biofuels are rare to non-existant. It's not fuel which is the problem, but fossil fuel!

You totally can fly on biofuel, but it is not cheap compared to fossil fuel without externalized costs.

If we stop using fossil fuels for the >90% of usage where fossil fuels are easy to replace, it'll make it much easier & cheaper for the <10% where it's difficult.

So we won't be able to fight air wars over the last remaining pieces of arable land.

I'm convinced.