Comment by phuff

I think that this is an attack on the understanding of the LLM _potentially_ but it doesn't seem like it's likely to standup to legal scrutiny?

Seems like this is pretty clearly a case of fraudulent misrepresentation (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraudulent_misrepresentation) which kinda nullifies the contract, if I understand correctly:

  Fraudulent misrepresentation is a tort claim, typically arising in the field of contract law, that occurs when a defendant makes a intentional or reckless misrepresentation of fact or opinion with the intention to coerce a party into action or inaction on the basis of that misrepresentation.
  To determine whether fraudulent misrepresentation occurred, the court will look for six factors:
    A representation was made
    The representation was false 
    That when made, the defendant knew that the representation was false or that the defendant made the statement recklessly without knowledge of its truth
    That the fraudulent misrepresentation was made with the intention that the plaintiff rely on it
    That the plaintiff did rely on the fraudulent misrepresentation
    That the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the fraudulent misrepresentation
  Like most claims under contract law, the standard remedy for fraudulent misrepresentation is damages.