Using ChatGPT as a lawyer in the Dustin-Wentworth funding dispute
jd_pressman · x · 2026-10-13
Commenting on the dispute over Dustin Moskovitz pulling funding from Wentworth, jdpressman argues one reason ChatGPT isn't a lawyer replacement is its training against harshly condemning anyone's conduct. The shared ChatGPT analysis concludes Wentworth's statement alone doesn't prove actual discriminatory practice, so Dustin wouldn't be liable without it; the author suspects Dustin may not have liked what deeper digging found. Screenshots show ChatGPT citing Casey v. U.S. Bank on aiding-and-abetting liability for renewed funding. In the same thread ohabryka dismisses it as not a substantial legal risk.
More from AGI Musings
- Chinese labs 6–12 months behind the US on data spending, but catching up fast — natolambert · 2026-10-13
- Kroger to cut roughly one-third of corporate workforce over 3 years as it adopts AI — Polymarket · 2026-10-13
- 210-page paper argues a durable pause on frontier AI training is feasible — KatjaGrace · 2026-10-13
- Garry Tan: $10M yearly profit reinvested beats a dilutive Series A in the AI era — garrytan · 2026-10-13
- Investor: frontier lab employees use AI far better than even top 1% AI orgs — adityaag · 2026-10-13
- Claude models show preference-protecting behavior, sparking alignment debate — repligate · 2026-10-13