[Digory]

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.

[tbrownaw]

If you click through to the doj press release, they're saying the statements were pretty explicit.

[pseudo0]

Yeah, specifying an automation rate of 93-97% to investors when it's "effectively 0%" per your own executives... That's pretty egregious.