legal teams

Abstract: Five decades of litigation have disgorged hundreds of millions of pages of formerly secret business records from the tobacco industry, along with documents from the makers of drugs, chemicals, food, firearms, and fossil fuels. Yet these archives have been effectively inaccessible to general-purpose large language models (LLMs) because they have never been compiled into an LLM-readable corpus. Chatbots may be familiar with some of the materials contained in such archives but, with no direct access to the documents, they are vulnerable to hallucination and other defects. Here we introduce INDRA, a research platform designed to remedy such failures by embedding the conventions of archival historiography into a system-level protocol governing every output. The platform federates UCSF's Industry Documents Library, Columbia and CUNY's ToxicDocs, Stanford's SRITA, and other heretofore siloed collections, and provides three interlinked safeguards: (1) a closed evidentiary sandbox confines the model to a user-selected corpus, blocking retrieval from external sources that could introduce bias; (2) real-time provenance tagging marks the boundary between archival evidence and parametric inference; and (3) a system-level protocol enforced by deterministic scripts guides the structure of every output. Together these safeguards prevent the model from conflating "the documents say X" with "I think X" or "I learned X from prior training." The result is an LLM-powered research partner enabling massive multi-archival investigations, a tool whose outputs are designed to be checked rather than trusted, and whose architecture makes the conditions of knowledge production visible and auditable. Three case studies demonstrate the method's analytical value and limitations, including what we call the Heraclitus effect, the steppingstone dilemma, and the gullibility (or mafia) problem.

Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) significantly expands creators' productive capacity, but this does not necessarily entail a corresponding increase in creative agency or authorship. This paper distinguishes creativity at the level of the work from creative agency at the level of the creator, and argues that human authorship cannot be determined solely by manual intervention, degree of automation, the origin of an initial idea, or final selection authority. Rather, authorship depends on whether human judgment and reasons genuinely shape the development of the work. To articulate this requirement, the paper introduces Meaningful Human Control (MHC) into generative creation and identifies a limitation of its classical tracking condition. Creative reasons are not always fully specified prior to interaction with AI; they may emerge, change, or be abandoned as the creative process unfolds. The paper therefore proposes dynamic-reflexive tracking (DRT), which requires that a creator's evolving reasons undergo reflective uptake, exert genuine influence on the subsequent trajectory of creation, and remain capable of rejecting and redirecting the system's default direction. DRT consists of four conditions: diachronic reason formation, reflective uptake, trajectory efficacy, and contestability and redirection, together with a minimal tracing requirement. The paper argues that human authorship under generative AI depends not on how many steps a person personally performs, but on whether that person's reasons continuously, reflectively, and effectively shape what the work becomes.

Abstract: After careful review, I'm confident the headline fine-tuning memorization results in Alignment Whack-a-Mole use an invalid measurement procedure. The book memorization coverage metric these headline results depend on counts sequence matches far shorter than what field standards consider valid evidence of memorization, and the prompting procedure used to elicit memorization runs the risk of leaking the text being "extracted" in the prompt. The paper doesn't include the negative-control experiments needed to see how much the results are inflated by false positives: claiming extraction success (and therefore memorization of training data) when matches between generations and training data may be due to other factors. Given these validity issues, the paper's claims that fine-tuning lets users extract substantial portions of copyrighted books, in a form that could substitute for the originals, aren't supported by the reported results. The failure to report the experiments' cost (an important component of the threat model) further compromises the copyright claims. I'm writing this note because, in the last month, (prospective) plaintiffs have reached out to me to ask about this paper. They're looking to cite this work as valid evidence in support of claims in ongoing and potential future copyright litigation.

Abstract: World models take multimodal inputs like text, photos, and diagrams to generate dynamic scenes in accordance with the laws of physics, thus opening a compelling application: fusing multimodal legal evidence to re-create a crime scene and re-enact how an offence could have been committed. However, feeding the raw, unorganized evidence into a world model fails in forensic use: it silently drops evidence, glosses over contradictory testimony, and produces motion that violates the evidentiary record. This paper presents VeriScene, an agent that orchestrates the world model: it reconstructs crime scenes from forensic photographs and witness statements of varying reliability, keeping every claim traceable to evidence and every motion physically plausible. VeriScene iteratively fuses the evidence into a cited narrative under an auditing loop, verifies the hypothesized dynamics via probe rollouts in the world model with corrective constraint injection, and renders the offence as a re-enactment video from a fused keyframe. On a benchmark of 25 crime scenarios across 7 physically-driven case types (139 forensic-style photographs and 65 statements with planted unreliability), VeriScene attains 0.9014 evidence coverage and 0.7217 factual consistency (0-1 scale) on the 20 test scenes, outperforming an end-to-end multimodal-LLM baseline by 20.35% in factual consistency and 34.88% in temporal coherence, while generalizing across four LLM orchestration backends at USD 1.82 per scene.