Comment by Digory
9 days ago
I'd think ambiguous statements about the scope of your AI would make it hard to prove fraud, if you were being careful at all. "Involving AI" could mean 1% AI.
So it's doubly surprising to me the government chose (criminal) wire fraud, not (civil) securities fraud, which would have a lower burden of proof.
Government lawyers almost never try to make their job harder than it has to be.
If you click through to the doj press release, they're saying the statements were pretty explicit.
Yeah, specifying an automation rate of 93-97% to investors when it's "effectively 0%" per your own executives... That's pretty egregious.
How do you define that? If I write a 'Hello World' program in C++, you could argue that the hard part of compiling, linking, and generating assembly code was done by a computer, so programming is 90% automated, even though most people would understand the automation level to be 0%.
You might argue this is a flawed example, but we've automated huge workflows at work that turned major time-consuming PITAs into something it wouldn't occur to most people that a human has anything to do with it.
6 replies →