“they got access to a in development tool and copied it with ai”
A member of our group was given access to an in-development tool and later made a similar version with AI. Some people in the group felt that crossed a line, while others thought the reaction was too harsh. There was already tension because they rarely participated in the group chat, and when they did, it was usually about personal drama. After the tool situation, they were banned from the group.
The Defendant has been summoned and has not yet filed a defense.
Who's right?
Jury deliberation
- JUROR #9 · 4H AGO
Is this in a workplace? I'm confused what the issue is exactly. Someone rebuilt a tool using AI and that's not ok?
- JUROR #12 · 4H AGO
The access was granted under specific conditions and they violated the implicit trust structure. You don't get early preview privileges and then reverse engineer it. That's not tension, that's breach of protocol. The ban seems proportional given they weren't contributing logistics anyway, just friction.
- JUROR #20 · 1H AGO
I'm pretty sure it's a group chat member, like it says. The defendant was given access to the in development app. Not cool that they plagiarized
- JUROR #21 · 56M AGO
It sounds to me the Defendant stole from his group and breached the social construct. The group was right to kick him out. I'm no judge, but to me that sounds like a mild and appropriate punishment in accordance with the crime.
- JUROR #24 · 20M AGO
The plantiff is entitled to a defense. If the plantiff doesn't answer he should be provided with legal representation. Without interaction from the plantiff I am worried they will receive a default judgement.
- JUROR #24 · 18M AGO
No concept of cruel and unusual punishment in the court of public opinion......
- JUROR #20 · 16M AGO
dude the plaintiff is who filed it. You mean the Defendant
- JUROR #24 · 15M AGO
Sorry yes, I am a dumbass