31–40 of 344 posts
While I do think Delve and the leadership there should be held responsible, it's a bit weird to see YC and others take shots at them for breaking the law when so many of their prized unicorns achieved what they did by being willing to just ignore laws and deal with the consequences later.
"By combining the evidence I collected together with what the sim.ai team provided, I will show that Delve has stolen an open-source company’s tech by violating their license and then making a lot of money with it." -> You mean like OpenAI, Anthropic and all these other 'unicorns'? I'm happy we're all clear on how bad Delve is but in essence what they were doing is exactly the same as what these AI companies do.
While I despise the sham commercial LLMs have made out of intellectual property, I think Delve is one step worse than that. The technology behind LLMs is innovative, even if the data used to train them have ethically and legally dubious origins. Delve doesn’t even have the ability to claim anything they’ve done as original, unless you count fraud as a service.
I'd wager there's some prior art...
"By combining the evidence I collected together with what the sim.ai team provided, I will show that Delve has stolen an open-source company’s tech by violating their license and then making a lot of money with it." -> You mean like OpenAI, Anthropic and all these other 'unicorns'? I'm happy we're all clear on how bad Delve is but in essence what they were doing is exactly the same as what these AI companies do.
While I despise the sham commercial LLMs have made out of intellectual property, I think Delve is one step worse than that. The technology behind LLMs is innovative, even if the data used to train them have ethically and legally dubious origins. Delve doesn’t even have the ability to claim anything they’ve done as original, unless you count fraud as a service.
But that's just the cherry on top. I don't think they're being thrown out because they violated a license. There are really serious fraud allegations. Allegedly they were rubber-stamping noncompliant customers, leaving them exposed to potential criminal liability under regulations like HIPPA.
https://deepdelver.substack.com/p/delve-fake-compliance-as-a...
I've only skimmed this so I do not endorse these allegations, but I think it's context missing from this discussion.
While I do think Delve and the leadership there should be held responsible, it's a bit weird to see YC and others take shots at them for breaking the law when so many of their prized unicorns achieved what they did by being willing to just ignore laws and deal with the consequences later.
While I do think Delve and the leadership there should be held responsible, it's a bit weird to see YC and others take shots at them for breaking the law when so many of their prized unicorns achieved what they did by being willing to just ignore laws and deal with the consequences later.
Ignoring a law is different from knowingly and intentionally breaking the law, especially when that law is actual intentional fraud. Also, there was no “endgame.” They weren’t trying to change the law; they were exclusively breaking it for profit.
This is something Airbnb has facilitated for a very long time, no? And Uber, back when it started.
From a legal perspective I don’t see that it matters whether you’re trying to change the law or not. You’re either following it or breaking it.
While I do think Delve and the leadership there should be held responsible, it's a bit weird to see YC and others take shots at them for breaking the law when so many of their prized unicorns achieved what they did by being willing to just ignore laws and deal with the consequences later.
Can you provide examples of YC startups that knowingly broke laws and just dealt with those issues later? I'm not very aware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ignoring a law is different from knowingly and intentionally breaking the law, especially when that law is actual intentional fraud. Also, there was no “endgame.” They weren’t trying to change the law; they were exclusively breaking it for profit.
> Ignoring a law is different from knowingly and intentionally breaking the law This is something Airbnb has facilitated for a very long time, no? And Uber, back when it started. From a legal perspective I don’t see that it matters whether you’re trying to change the law or not. You’re either following it or breaking it.
In reality, it makes quite a difference if public opinion is on your side or not.
“We decided to commit fraud by providing fake compliance reports” reads very differently from “we let homeowners make money by renting a room”