That's an important bit of information that probably should make it into the blog, and I hope you guys made the right call, but I think that that is probably not the case. Best of luck.

oh: "What isn’t mentioned in the analysis is that we ran a System 1 decision model on each dataset to determine whether it contained privacy-sensitive data."

I hope at least that that was a local model. If not you've made things considerably worse.

It’s mentioned in the Handelsblatt article linked in the blog post. Since the lawyer was brought in by the newspaper, we didn’t mention their involvement in the post.

All LLM-based analysis was performed using local models, specifically the "elephant-1" model on our local RTX Pro 4000 SFF.

I respect your insistence on proper data handling—you’re right to expect it—and we tried to be as careful as possible when conducting the analysis. Now let’s hold Lovable to the same standard.

The lawyer that was brought in by the newspaper was making sure the newspaper wouldn't end up being liable. The only lawyer whose advice you should take is the one that you pay.

As long as they are representing someone I think lawyers have the same obligations regardless of who actually pays them or if they are receiving any payment at all.

Yes, this is true, but that requires there to not be any conflict of interest, which is really not all that clear-cut in situations like these.

And a lawyer would make that decision and immediately decline to give advice once they find a conflict of interest between joint clients.