How’s that for an alphabet soup? For definition and to avoid confusion in nomenclature, I’m thinking specifically in terms of, say, a doctor-patient/therapist-client confidentiality type of thing rather than trade secrets.
I mentioned back in November that the Lump of Foul Deformity (aka my ex-son in law) had used a GenAI program to answer an online questionnaire on domestic abuse…that ultimately pegged him as the abuse victim and, as it’s turned out, wasn’t totally ignored in the divorce final hearing (as we’d imagined would happen when the court was informed that said document showed “greater than 90% plagiarism”. The albatross became the “ex” officially just before Christmas and with a much less generous division of family assets than he expected…or we expected, come to that…but more than he actually deserved. What’s the problem, you may well ask! He (aided and abetted by his pettyfogging legal team) are unwilling to accept it…have already filed a Rule 59 motion (Google will help here) which was denied and is now filing an appeal. Background there rather than bellyaching.
One or two incidents have made me wonder just how much therapist-client privilege can be expected when everything about the therapist (DV evaluator, in this case)-client interaction is fundamentally bogus…not real…concocted from sources unrelated to client’s (the toss pot’s) life? I’ve scoured internet sources…and there’s plenty on AI use that’s genetated by AI, in all probability…but I can’t seem to find the exact answer to my question.
I suspect it’s early days for any legal precedent, but I guess I’m wondering the status of a finding of misuse of a GenAI program when the individual who first noticed something amiss (moi…it was the correct use of the Oxford comma gave a cause to look further) probably shouldn’t have had access to the document…if it had been kosher.
AI gathers information on a topic. That does not need to be in the doctor patient relationship. People publish on their personal problems. They often may claim they told their therapists information. That does not mean AI has access to doctor records.
This actually wasn’t a therapy session but a forensic evaluation (of domestic violence) I would say that, rather than discussing personal problems for a therapeutic resolution, answers to something like this are likely to be designed to portray the answerer in the most favourable/least abusive light, and if possible, turn the tables on the other party (shades of the Depp-Heard case)
I found it quite alarming that someone who’s portraying themselves as worthy of conducting such an interview was so credulous as to make no effort to fact check or even wonder … at the mellifluous prose, and polished grammar and punctuation in someonewho was routinely citing being ridiculed for his poor education as an example of “endured abuse”. A textbook perfect example of a long term victim of marital abuse…with a requisite number of admissions of being less than perfect himself for plausibility sake. I actually said to Geri’s lawyer at the time…just imagine if the Colorado Bar Exam were sent out online to candidates to fill in at their unproctored convenience. A first time pass rate greater than 99%, I’ll wager.
Regardless, the question I’m asking is would evaluator/abuser confidentiality rules be likely to apply when the abuser has concocted an alternate life for himself via GenAI.
I guess there’s no real concrete answer at this time, so never mind. Shouldn’t need to wait too long, I fancy. If one person’s thought of this, you can bet there are others!