Comment by elicksaur
1 year ago
>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
> "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.
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.
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.
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
> 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.)
8 replies →
If one can't get a suit to churn put a license while with VC, I don't know how else cloud it get any easier.
I would assume it would be just an email away for a YC statup.
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.
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.
Same for computer code.
… Actually, the FoTL/SovCit crowd must be _loving_ this. An endless supply of legal-flavoured bullshit at the touch of a button.
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.
"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?
Yikes. I'm older and this kind of behaviour isn't new at all.
The detrimental English usage however is.
Language has been changing for as long as language has existed.
I would not go anywhere near a product whose founder talks like that.
Strong grindset dawg.
Truly our next sigma, no cap.
Is it supposed to hurt using those words?
You are really bringing the rizz.
Yo dawg, we heard you like ChatGPT so we ChayGPTd how to ChatGPT a whole new ChatGPT
stale memes are the best memes
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.