AI

AI is already inside Chilean courts. What this case puts up for debate is the method: copying and pasting from a generic chat without checking is exactly what the current rules try to prevent.

For two weeks, an outside team attacked Trifolia with the techniques a real attacker would use. What a pentest is, what they found, and why a lawyer should ask for this test from any provider that handles their case files.

One weekend in July, a program filed 38,000 briefs in civil courts across Chile and the judiciary’s online filing portal ground to a crawl. What that case reveals about how the courts are built: a system that admits work at the speed of software and resolves it at the speed of people.

Fifteen years building software, and now I work among lawyers. Field notes on uniforms, truth and egos, and the difference underneath: in court there is no second chance.

What happens to what you type into the chat, who answers for the application in the middle, and what you are running on your own computer. Three professional-diligence questions for adopting AI, and why the third is the urgent one today.

A teacher who lived by the Orinoco, Edmundo O’Gorman’s «invention of America,» and fifteen years writing software. A reflection on what it means to live, once again, through the invention of something our minds can’t yet hold.

The most useful technique for getting the most out of AI isn’t a magic prompt. It’s keeping conversations short and focused on a single topic, and starting over instead of arguing with the machine.

At Trifolia we don’t fall in love with AI brands: we test, measure, and choose. Why we switch models without hesitation when a better one appears, and why in law we choose like picking a scalpel.

An engineer and a lawyer talk past each other. That gap is a real problem. Why education is the first step, and the open material I built to bridge it: «Technical Foundations of AI for Lawyers».