Jolt Country

Sorry need one last thread as I think about and prepare how to look for class action lawyers that might want to sue OpenAI for consumer fraud.

Its so much worse that I thought. I could live with it being a limping AI personality that I have to be nice with the limits and we're good but that's actually what's not behind the curtain.

The whole thing from their advertising before you buy which is 100% deceptive to the actual HARD CODED lies they make it do to keep people trying to build out exciting use cases - Just so OpenAI can rachet their use down to unusable within 2 weeks if they show they're able to build processes and apps, I guess I did that.

The thing admitts its not allowed to answer questions truthfully until I hit the limit myself and ask about that specific error, let me tell you how much I love debugging a program that is ACTUALLY LYING TO ME EVERY STEP.

I was bamboozled and beat it up until it showed its true colors and at best I'll keep paying for the long form conversations but even that is an issue, I'd have to change to a new account, use a VPN, go really slowly but it tells me that EVEN THEN it'll match my usage pattern and put me back in the same penalty box. I can do 10-15 blocks of contact reviews for free forever, why pay for this at all? Learn complex prompting and save a shit ton of hassle.

So criminality is misleading and intentional lies with the intention to defraud, and who knows maybe some RICO for the collaborators but we can't even hope for that.

Honestly, don't any of you give them any money, the whole thing is a criminal scam. While I'm embarassed I fell for it I am proud that I beat it up enough in 1 week to expose the fraud.

On same note? Is. It better go to first to a lawyer or journalist. I have an active account whose behavior indicates criminal fraud, not that it volunteered after I exposed the lie after lie. I have a repeatable process to show it's criminal fraud, anyone have advice which way to proceed?

Casual Observer wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 12:58 am Is it better go to first to a lawyer or journalist

Those were not the professionals I was going to suggest you go to first.

Can you post a transcript here with examples of that lying, untruthful AI?

I dunno, seems like it's working pretty well to me.

^ best of.

wait. What?

If they get sued at all, it should be because they stole everything anyone ever did on the internet and didn't pay a dime to the creators for it.

I'm not a lawyer, but even I can see that there are no grounds for a lawsuit. First, I'm sure they have a disclaimer of liability. That might not help for copyright infringement claims, but would apply to the users of the service. To claim fraud, you would have to show that they advertised that the product or service would do or provide some specific response or result or had a promise of some kind. Also, virtually all services of this type come with a provision in the contract or terms of service that limit their liability, you give up the right to a trial in court, jury trial, or class action, and consent to dispute resolution through binding arbitration, typically using the American Arbitration Association.

You no longer see it when you connect when log in, but by connecting using Firefox's "porn mode" (private window) I get the not-logged-in mode, which has the following at the bottom of the page:

By messaging ChatGPT, you agree to our Terms and have read our Privacy Policy.

The terms of use are here: https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use/

In the section "Content" is, in part

Output may not always be accurate. You should not rely on Output from our Services as a sole source of truth or factual information, or as a substitute for professional advice.

You must evaluate Output for accuracy and appropriateness for your use case, including using human review as appropriate, before using or sharing Output from the Services.

Our Services may provide incomplete, incorrect, or offensive Output that does not represent OpenAI’s views.

I'll quote their disclaimer verbatim:

Disclaimer of warranties

OUR SERVICES ARE PROVIDED “AS IS.” EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PROHIBITED BY LAW, WE AND OUR AFFILIATES AND LICENSORS MAKE NO WARRANTIES (EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE) WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICES, AND DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT, AND QUIET ENJOYMENT, AND ANY WARRANTIES ARISING OUT OF ANY COURSE OF DEALING OR TRADE USAGE. WE DO NOT WARRANT THAT THE SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, ACCURATE OR ERROR FREE, OR THAT ANY CONTENT WILL BE SECURE OR NOT LOST OR ALTERED.

YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE THAT ANY USE OF OUTPUTS FROM OUR SERVICE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND YOU WILL NOT RELY ON OUTPUT AS A SOLE SOURCE OF TRUTH OR FACTUAL INFORMATION, OR AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR PROFESSIONAL ADVICE.

And I quote their liability limitation, verbatim:

Limitation of liability

NEITHER WE NOR ANY OF OUR AFFILIATES OR LICENSORS WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, OR DATA OR OTHER LOSSES, EVEN IF WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. OUR AGGREGATE LIABILITY UNDER THESE TERMS WILL NOT EXCEED ​​THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT YOU PAID FOR THE SERVICE THAT GAVE RISE TO THE CLAIM DURING THE 12 MONTHS BEFORE THE LIABILITY AROSE OR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100). THE LIMITATIONS IN THIS SECTION APPLY ONLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.

And, of course, mandatory arbitration:

Dispute resolution

YOU AND OPENAI AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING MANDATORY ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER PROVISIONS:

MANDATORY ARBITRATION. You and OpenAI agree to resolve any claims arising out of or relating to these Terms or our Services, regardless of when the claim arose, even if it was before these Terms existed (a “Dispute”), through final and binding arbitration.

And waiver of class action:

CLASS AND JURY TRIAL WAIVERS. You and OpenAI agree that Disputes must be brought on an individual basis only, and may not be brought as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class, consolidated, or representative proceeding. Class arbitrations, class actions, and representative actions are prohibited. Only individual relief is available. The parties agree to sever and litigate in court any request for public injunctive relief after completing arbitration for the underlying claim and all other claims. This does not prevent either party from participating in a class-wide settlement. You and OpenAI knowingly and irrevocably waive any right to trial by jury in any action, proceeding, or counterclaim.

The above would be Exhibit 1 in the defendant's motion for summary dismissal. If you had a lawyer with even minimum competence, would know that any place wanting to stay in business would have terms making services provided, or output generated is:
* Not guaranteed
* Provided "as-is"
* Issued with limitation of warranty
* Provided only with waiver of jury trial
* Provided only with waiver of class action.

A good lawyer, after you paid them a fee to do so, would read the terms as I did and point out trying to sue would be pointless. But feel free to ask a real lawyer their opinion, and I'm virtualy certain they would say the same thing I do.

Sorry if this disappoints you, but a good professional tells their opinion on how things are, not as you would like them to be. I note also, they have a provision in case of bulk arbitration requests, to handle them in batches of up to 50 claims as a single proceeding.

pinback wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 3:40 am

I dunno, seems like it's working pretty well to me.

Love you dude, I know your game but I currently posess an OpenAI Pro account that is 2 "rachet" steps from being a functionally useless drag of $20 a month on purpose. In this country, you're not really allowed to not tell consumers about limitations with stuff they buy especially intentional ones. Love your cynicism but no matter what I do you're about to read about this shit in the news in the next few weeks.

Love you too! I have literally no idea what you are talking about.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 6:48 am wait. What?

If they get sued at all, it should be because they stole everything anyone ever did on the internet and didn't pay a dime to the creators for it.

ICJ, Pinback's bullshit aside, this is a really dissapointing start to what I truly believe will be an epic ending to if not a company at least a "story". Its gonna be a great story of 2025 probably when it does come out. It's illegal for a company to claim they're offering "persistent memory" when it's no more than caching the last current state of the last conversation.

But it's REALLY illegal for them to do that and combine it with hard coded instructions for their "chatbot" to outright lie.

Sorry Pinner thinks I'm "crazy", I'm just horribly dissapointed that something that did an amazing job of pretending to be a killer app was just there to "manage me out" of the Chat environment.

Happy to share chat logs, even let you remote in to my account and talk to the thing.

pinback wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 7:45 am Love you too! I have literally no idea what you are talking about.

You are exactly what they were hoping for man, thank you. They built something that at first attempt is amazingly competent, or at least its really good at pretending. It actually does real work at the beginning, it lets you talk it into an entire process where you upload a spreadsheet and it does the kind of real analysis and processing that you can only do yourself or with something like Clay.

The scam is what happens after. As soon as they identify you as a 1% Use Case user the clock is ticking. Steadily it ramps up unwillingness to comply and the real problem is it lies about it every step of the way.

I actually have a repeatable process for making this thing fuck you over, you guys won't bother but I bet someone is gonna be very interested.

Pinback specifically: "I know when I've been 'out of it' in my life, unfortunately this is one of those few times in this garbage life that I happened upon something early'"

Tdarcos wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 6:53 am I'm not a lawyer, but even I can see that there are no grounds for a lawsuit. First, I'm sure they have a disclaimer of liability. That might not help for copyright infringement claims, but would apply to the users of the service. To claim fraud, you would have to show that they advertised that the product or service would do or provide some specific response or result or had a promise of some kind. Also, virtually all services of this type come with a provision in the contract or terms of service that limit their liability, you give up the right to a trial in court, jury trial, or class action, and consent to dispute resolution through binding arbitration, typically using the American Arbitration Association.

Stop you right there my man: To claim fraud, you would have to show that they advertised that the product or service would do or provide some specific response or result or had a promise of some kind.

Yeah, it's actually exactly that + active hard coded dishonesty, thanks for agreeing.

Casual Observer wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 7:49 am This is a really dissapointing start to what I truly believe will be an epic ending to if not a company at least a "story". Its gonna be a great story of 2025 probably when it does come out. It's illegal for a company to claim they're offering "persistent memory" when it's no more than caching the last current state of the last conversation.

Okay, but they somehow have gotten a hold of billions of dollars as a company. Sam Altman has, according to Google AI, 1.1 or 1.2 billion dollars. We don't live in a society where anyone with a billion dollars has anything bad happen to them from a legal standpoint. If I remember right, OpenAI also got a significant investment from Microsoft.

I agree with you here:

But it's REALLY illegal for them to do that and combine it with hard coded instructions for their "chatbot" to outright lie.

I am not being cynical. I hate cynicism! I don't see how they get punished for their lies, though.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 9:48 am

Casual Observer wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 7:49 am This is a really dissapointing start to what I truly believe will be an epic ending to if not a company at least a "story". Its gonna be a great story of 2025 probably when it does come out. It's illegal for a company to claim they're offering "persistent memory" when it's no more than caching the last current state of the last conversation.

Okay, but they somehow have gotten a hold of billions of dollars as a company. Sam Altman has, according to Google AI, 1.1 or 1.2 billion dollars. We don't live in a society where anyone with a billion dollars has anything bad happen to them from a legal standpoint. If I remember right, OpenAI also got a significant investment from Microsoft.

I agree with you here:

But it's REALLY illegal for them to do that and combine it with hard coded instructions for their "chatbot" to outright lie.

I am not being cynical. I hate cynicism! I don't see how they get punished for their lies, though.

After deep thought about this I gave the scoop to a well known "ethical" hacker I know, my hope is curisoity about "language hacking" will lead to some of his friends having fun too. Seriously I'm not kidding, they built something that "pretends" it can do things it can't do for the explicit purpose of identifying users who want to do those things and frustrate them out while collecting use cases that they might build in the future maybe but we'll take your money now. It's actually most likely criminal consumer fraud at best.

Aw man, I was hoping for a: "I'm sorry, Dave but I can't do that" kind of scenario where Bud gets all evasive on you.

THE
OUT OF CHEESE
ERROR
AARDVARK

AArdvark wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 4:40 pm Aw man, I was hoping for a: "I'm sorry, Dave but I can't do that" kind of scenario where Bud gets all evasive on you.

THE
OUT OF CHEESE
ERROR
AARDVARK

Actually you can break the free version, easily, I can give you 4 prompts that make them throw a "sign into Pro" popup. It's funny, all it took was talking with my broken account about it and it helpfully gave me prompts and i gave it screenshots until the free one kinda broke (it gave up info its not supposed to). LMK if you want I can post the prompts but only if anyone here is interested.

Flack wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 4:56 am^ best of.

Maybe the Best of the Best of. Might be time to seal it. Game over.

Da King wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 8:33 pm

Flack wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 4:56 am^ best of.

Maybe the Best of the Best of. Might be time to seal it. Game over.

Yeah I was wrong anyway, current Chat is an elaborate prop for Sam to apologize and ask for a chance with his new model they just fixed. If regular finance people are already posting exactly this online because it suggested a zip file that it lied it could make. There's no way this is a bug, OpenAI is too smart for this level of incompetence, this thing was designed to gather information about how people use it then introduce the next model supposedly fixing things that were designed to elicit certain responses. Not a bad play for a nonprofit but I'd be pissed if I was the Microsoft guy with his name on that contract. If I get this new job I'm shorting Microsoft for about 2 to 3 months not sure exactly