6 ms·

>dawg I ChatGPT’d the license Why would you believe anything this person says after that? Default assumption #1 is any writing they output is an LLM product an

>dawg I ChatGPT’d the license Why would you believe anything this person says after that? Default assumption #1 is any writing they output is an LLM product and insincere. Assumption #2 their actions are taken with little thought or intentionality. He deleted the tweet, so link with pic (I don’t endorse the generational dig in this tweet): https://x.com/anothercohen/status/1840515897804623882 https://x.com/anothercohen/status/1840515897804623882

keyle 2y ago
Yikes. I'm older and this kind of behaviour isn't new at all. The detrimental English usage however is.
- TRiG_Ireland 2y ago
  Language has been changing for as long as language has existed.
blitzar 2y ago
Strong grindset dawg.
- seanthemon 2y ago
  Truly our next sigma, no cap. Is it supposed to hurt using those words?
  - blitzar 2y ago
    You are really bringing the rizz.
Etheryte 2y ago
This just completely blows my mind. Who in their right mind thinks that generating legal content without even proofreading it is a good idea? It would've probably been less bad if they omitted a license altogether. At the same time, wasn't it recent news that a company that touted AI-assisted lawyers turned out to be no lawyers and just an LLM? The world of today is weird to me.
- elicksaur 2y ago
  GenAI usage has definitely has opened my eyes that the average person seems to think legalese is complicated for no rational reason, and it just needs to sound right.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    … Actually, the FoTL/SovCit crowd must be _loving_ this. An endless supply of legal-flavoured bullshit at the touch of a button.
  - reverius42 2y ago
    Same for computer code.
brap 2y ago
I would not go anywhere near a product whose founder talks like that.
zenapollo 2y ago
Yo dawg, we heard you like ChatGPT so we ChayGPTd how to ChatGPT a whole new ChatGPT
- tivert 2y ago
  stale memes are the best memes
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
The wild thing isn’t that they ChatGPT’d license. That’s incompetent but forgivable, maybe even smart. The move that dials the dumbassery to eleven is using it as a defence. On Twitter. Like, Exhibit A for any lawsuit that company is ever in will be this tweet: it demonstrates a proud disrespect for law and contracts. That’s high-proof mens rea if I’ve ever seen any.
- drpossum 2y ago
  Why is that forgivable? Any serious venture would have a involved, you know, some kind of legal expert to do a license. Getting that wrong at any stage has serious repercussions and can effectively end the whole project. I was given three pieces of advice on starting up my own business and they were good: 1) Get a lawyer 2) Get an accountant 3) Listen to every word they have to say
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Why is that forgivable? Because legal naïvete is common and isn't a good predictor of founder ineptitude. Is it better to be legally savvy? Of course. But thinking you can wing it with a license agreement because it's boring and unfamiliar and you're rather focus on building your product is understandable. (In some cases, it might even be the right call.)
    - dukeyukey 2y ago
      Legal naïvete is fine. Most of us probably are. Not realising you're legally naive is beyond stupid. Extraordinarily stupid.
    - drpossum 2y ago
      Claiming legal naivete is acceptable and sometimes even commendable is probably the most irresponsible thing I've ever read on here.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
arp242 2y ago
"we busy building rn can't be bothered with legal" Attribution is one of the most basic precepts of decency. Not even "open source" or "free software", just basic decency. Mistakes happen and that's okay, but being all derisive about it initially, and then trying to spin that as "we learned about licensing" after people call you out on it is hard to take as genuine. A genuine good faith response would have been "oops, what a silly embarrassing mistake" and then spending all of 30 seconds fixing it. These people "like" open source only as means to extract value. They are only "part of the community" when it suits them. Nihilistic cryptobros considering everything that's not nailed down as a wankdoll to be abused and extract value from – who would have expected?
JohnFen 2y ago
> "we busy building rn can't be bothered with legal" This one line tells me that's an outfit that should be avoided entirely. It's either unfathomable incompetence, or a strong aversion to doing things properly. Either way, it says nothing good.
- rchaud 2y ago
  Modern Silicon Valley, YC included, has abandoned its pretences of encouraging meritocracy, product quality and competing in a free and fair market. It's personality hires and ideological alignment over substance these days. Airbnb and Uber succeeded by simply pouring cash into funding legal challenges, and waiting for cities to give up. OpenAI can't chase after Middle Eastern cash fast enough. Musk and Thiel are openly backing the most brazenly corrupt presidential candidate in US history.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
anonzzzies 2y ago
Yeah, I quite confused how these guys got money and I am sure this 'product' won't amount to anything. But some comment on twitter was correct; it's a launch people will remember; that's good I guess.
rurp 2y ago
Wow, that post from the founder is as bad as it gets. Impressive amounts of arrogant, dumb, dismissive, and rude in a single tweet. I can see why yesterday blew up their face. The "we busy building rn can't be bothered with legal" is especially hilarious given the paltry amount of coding they have actually done so far.

keyle 2y ago

Yikes. I'm older and this kind of behaviour isn't new at all. The detrimental English usage however is.

TRiG_Ireland 2y ago
Language has been changing for as long as language has existed.

blitzar 2y ago

Strong grindset dawg.

seanthemon 2y ago
Truly our next sigma, no cap. Is it supposed to hurt using those words?
- blitzar 2y ago
  You are really bringing the rizz.

Etheryte 2y ago

This just completely blows my mind. Who in their right mind thinks that generating legal content without even proofreading it is a good idea? It would've probably been less bad if they omitted a license altogether. At the same time, wasn't it recent news that a company that touted AI-assisted lawyers turned out to be no lawyers and just an LLM? The world of today is weird to me.

elicksaur 2y ago
GenAI usage has definitely has opened my eyes that the average person seems to think legalese is complicated for no rational reason, and it just needs to sound right.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  … Actually, the FoTL/SovCit crowd must be _loving_ this. An endless supply of legal-flavoured bullshit at the touch of a button.
- reverius42 2y ago
  Same for computer code.

brap 2y ago

I would not go anywhere near a product whose founder talks like that.

zenapollo 2y ago

Yo dawg, we heard you like ChatGPT so we ChayGPTd how to ChatGPT a whole new ChatGPT

tivert 2y ago
stale memes are the best memes

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

The wild thing isn’t that they ChatGPT’d license. That’s incompetent but forgivable, maybe even smart. The move that dials the dumbassery to eleven is using it as a defence. On Twitter. Like, Exhibit A for any lawsuit that company is ever in will be this tweet: it demonstrates a proud disrespect for law and contracts. That’s high-proof mens rea if I’ve ever seen any.

drpossum 2y ago
Why is that forgivable? Any serious venture would have a involved, you know, some kind of legal expert to do a license. Getting that wrong at any stage has serious repercussions and can effectively end the whole project. I was given three pieces of advice on starting up my own business and they were good: 1) Get a lawyer 2) Get an accountant 3) Listen to every word they have to say
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Why is that forgivable? Because legal naïvete is common and isn't a good predictor of founder ineptitude. Is it better to be legally savvy? Of course. But thinking you can wing it with a license agreement because it's boring and unfamiliar and you're rather focus on building your product is understandable. (In some cases, it might even be the right call.)
  - dukeyukey 2y ago
    Legal naïvete is fine. Most of us probably are. Not realising you're legally naive is beyond stupid. Extraordinarily stupid.
  - drpossum 2y ago
    Claiming legal naivete is acceptable and sometimes even commendable is probably the most irresponsible thing I've ever read on here.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago

arp242 2y ago

"we busy building rn can't be bothered with legal" Attribution is one of the most basic precepts of decency. Not even "open source" or "free software", just basic decency. Mistakes happen and that's okay, but being all derisive about it initially, and then trying to spin that as "we learned about licensing" after people call you out on it is hard to take as genuine. A genuine good faith response would have been "oops, what a silly embarrassing mistake" and then spending all of 30 seconds fixing it. These people "like" open source only as means to extract value. They are only "part of the community" when it suits them. Nihilistic cryptobros considering everything that's not nailed down as a wankdoll to be abused and extract value from – who would have expected?

JohnFen 2y ago

> "we busy building rn can't be bothered with legal" This one line tells me that's an outfit that should be avoided entirely. It's either unfathomable incompetence, or a strong aversion to doing things properly. Either way, it says nothing good.

rchaud 2y ago
Modern Silicon Valley, YC included, has abandoned its pretences of encouraging meritocracy, product quality and competing in a free and fair market. It's personality hires and ideological alignment over substance these days. Airbnb and Uber succeeded by simply pouring cash into funding legal challenges, and waiting for cities to give up. OpenAI can't chase after Middle Eastern cash fast enough. Musk and Thiel are openly backing the most brazenly corrupt presidential candidate in US history.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

anonzzzies 2y ago

Yeah, I quite confused how these guys got money and I am sure this 'product' won't amount to anything. But some comment on twitter was correct; it's a launch people will remember; that's good I guess.

rurp 2y ago

Wow, that post from the founder is as bad as it gets. Impressive amounts of arrogant, dumb, dismissive, and rude in a single tweet. I can see why yesterday blew up their face. The "we busy building rn can't be bothered with legal" is especially hilarious given the paltry amount of coding they have actually done so far.