Artificial intelligence: bullshit, failures, frauds, nonsense, scams etc.

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Builder.ai, an AI start-up with operations in Singapore, overestimated sales by 300%​

The company, valued at about US$1.5 billion in its last fund-raising round, is now planning to file for bankruptcy.

May 23, 2025

LONDON – When Builder.ai was seeking an emergency loan in 2024, the start-up gave lenders a revenue forecast that proved to be four times its actual sales, people familiar with the matter said.

A group of creditors, led by Israeli firm Viola Credit, were originally told that Builder.ai projected sales of US$220 million (S$284 million) for 2024, the people said. The company later disclosed that the actual revenue amount for the year turned out to be about US$50 million, they said.

That revelation was one of the factors that ultimately led the lenders to seize most of the UK-based artificial intelligence (AI) start-up’s cash, the people said.

The company, which has operations in Singapore and was valued at US$1.5 billion in its last fund-raising round, is now planning to file for bankruptcy.

It marks the biggest collapse of an AI start-up since ChatGPT’s 2022 release ushered in a surge of investment in the industry.

Builder.ai’s founder and former chief executive Sachin Dev Duggal has not responded to several requests for comment via phone and e-mail. Builder.ai and Viola declined to comment. Representatives from the other members of the creditor consortium didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The board was first alerted that something was amiss in December, when Mr Duggal came back asking for more funds after the loan, one of the people said. It conducted another round of due diligence and found that revenue was actually on track to be near US$100 million, the people said.

By February, the Builder.ai board pushed out Mr Duggal and had authorised a US$75 million injection into the company, one of the people said. It appointed Mr Manpreet Ratia – an executive from its Singapore-based investor Jungle Ventures – as CEO and assigned an independent auditor to go through the books. That audit revealed that the final revenue figure for the year was about US$50 million, the people said.

At that point, the creditor consortium seized the cash in the company’s bank accounts, about US$37 million.

Builder.ai, whose platform lets businesses quickly create custom smartphone apps, was an early success story for European tech, raising funds from Microsoft and the Qatar Investment Authority. The World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg’s WndrCo, Lakestar and SoftBank Group’s Deepcore incubator have also invested in the company.


In a letter on May 20 to employees that was shared with Bloomberg, the company said it was “unable to recover from historic challenges and past decisions that placed significant strain on its financial position”. Builder.ai said it will appoint an administrator to oversee the process. BLOOMBERG

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Jail for man who offered AI-powered investment scheme and cheated victims of over $4.6m​

Ong Kai Min was sentenced to seven years and nine months’ jail on Sept 19.

Sep 19, 2025

SINGAPORE - A man who offered a fraudulent artificial intelligence-powered investment scheme was sentenced to seven years and nine months’ jail on Sept 19 after he cheated multiple victims of over $4.6 million in total.

Ong Kai Min, 42, had earlier pleaded guilty to eight counts of cheating involving eight investors – seven people and a company.

The eight charges involved more than $3.39 million, an amount which includes US$537,000 (S$689,000).

Sixteen other charges, including those linked to the remaining amount of money, were considered during Ong’s sentencing.

At the time of the offences, which took place between May 2019 and March 2021, the Singaporean was a director of a private firm called Singapore Index Trading Institute (SITI).

He told investors the company had developed several AI programs that conducted automated trades in financial instruments.

Investors were also told that the AI programs boasted historical returns of a minimum of 3 per cent a month and projected returns of between 2 per cent and 10 per cent a month.

In reality, no trading activities were conducted with the investors’ monies.

In an earlier statement, police said Ong was a director of four firms.

The companies are Siti, Bookhero, OKM Holdings and C7 Traders Vanuatu (C7TVL), the last of which was incorporated in the Pacific island nation.

Siti offered educational courses, where Ong taught participants how to trade in areas such as foreign exchange.

C7TVL operated an online trading platform known as C7 Traders.

Among other things, potential investors were told that trades would be conducted on the investors’ personal trading account on C7 Traders, and also that C7TVL was a brokerage independent of SITI.

In August, Deputy Public Prosecutor Jordon Li told the court: “None of the above was true. The accused owned both C7TVL and SITI… None of the investors’ funds were ever forwarded to C7TVL to fund investors’ trades.”

Ong later used the investors’ money for other purposes, including operational expenses of both SITI and C7TVL and his own personal expenditures.

Between March 2021 and June 2022, the Commercial Affairs Department received 30 reports alleging fraud by SITI and C7TVL. Ong was charged in court in January 2025.

 

[Willamshakespear]

Say all you want against Artificial Intelligence... it's only a REALITY and FACT OF LIFE, that Humans will either have to ADAPT, or be left behind.

The POWER of AI lays in Mathematical Algorithms, AND the amount of High END Chips with Numerous SERVERS that can PROCESS the necessary DATA that ALL Humankind will need for INFORMATION, as information is POWER, more so at LIGHT SPEED that DATA travels upon, in many societal aspects of life such as in trade, finance, marketing, entertainment, etc......and the best place for such servers and chips will be on the Darkside of our Moon - a huge untapped and un-inhabited Real Estate, as it does not faces the Sun, and thus is cold enough for such to operate on without any additional power or even water requirements to be built.

No doubt that there will be naysayers, scammers and 'flat earth theorists' - whom WILL either scam others for personal profit or others whom resist CHANGE- which is only the juggernaut of EVOLUTION that will roll forever mindlessly regardless of Human emotions that make us who we are.

The can be NO DENYING of what current GENERATIVE AI and soon to come Quantum AI can do, which are RECORDED FACTS, to CORRECT ERRORS and EVOLVE....

ULTIMATELY, such tech is STILL under Human Control, for its development and progress, the way Nuke Tech is still controlled despite 80 years of its discovery......

Technology is MEANT to assist Humankind, such as eradicating the need for jiakliaobees manpower, incompetents, etc, BUT NEVER, EVER, to be used for detrimental purposes that would hurt and harm others......

 

[k1976]

Just like last time eBay, Netscape n Paypal
All Huat big big de woh

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyer ordered to pay client’s opponent $800 after discovery of fake case created by AI​

Mr Lalwani Anil Mangan of DL Law Corporation said the non-existent case was originally cited by his junior lawyer, who would have run the case through an AI app.

Summary

• A lawyer, Mr Lalwani Anil Mangan, must pay $800 after his firm filed court documents citing a fake case generated by an AI tool.
• The court found this improper conduct wastes judicial time and resources, potentially damaging the legal profession's integrity.
• The judge emphasised lawyers must verify AI-generated content and uphold professional duties, as AI tools have limitations.

AI generated

Oct 02, 2025

SINGAPORE – A lawyer has been ordered to pay $800 to his client’s opponent in a civil suit after a non-existent case generated by an artificial intelligence (AI) tool was found in his court documents.

Mr Lalwani Anil Mangan of DL Law Corporation said the non-existent case was originally cited by his junior lawyer, who would have run the case through an AI app.

In an 11-page judgment on Sept 29, Assistant Registrar Tan Yu Qing said such improper conduct causes valuable judicial time to be lost and unnecessary expenditure of resources.

Ms Tan added: “His actions may, in the eyes of the public, cast a shadow over the legitimacy and honour of the legal profession and its role as a custodian of justice in Singapore.”

Mr Lalwani represented claimants Tajudin Gulam Rasul and Mohamed Ghouse Tajudin in their civil suit against Ms Suriaya Haja Mohideen, who was represented by Mr Umar Abdullah Mazeli of Adel Law LLC.

The judgment did not detail much about the civil proceedings, but said the defendant, Ms Suriaya, had applied to set aside a default judgment entered against her for failing to file a notice of intention to contest or not contest the claim.

Lawyers for the claimants filed written submissions on June 1 citing a purported case to support one of their legal arguments.
On July 18, lawyers for the defendant e-mailed counsel for the claimants and said they were unable to find the cited case. Three days later, counsel for the claimants filed amended written submissions, where the case was replaced.

The lawyers claimed the amendments were merely to update the document due to typographical and clerical errors, and because a case was “inadvertently cited”.

When probed by the court, Mr Lalwani admitted the case in fact did not exist. He claimed the original work was done by a junior lawyer, and he realised the error when he took over the matter.

He said: “I am aware of (the) requirement that the case has to be correct. I am not here to mislead anybody, which is why I went to look at it specifically. The original work that was done by my junior has some errors.”

Though Ms Suriaya’s application was eventually dismissed, which meant she had to pay the claimants, the parties considered whether a separate personal costs order ought to be made against Mr Lalwani.

Mr Umar said they had incurred unnecessary time and costs in attempting to find the non-existent case. He added this was the first time he had encountered such a situation.

Mr Lalwani argued that though the case did not exist, the legal proposition that he had sought to rely on existed.

He said after he identified the error, he remedied it as soon as he could and updated the court.

Noting that the junior lawyer in question was just called to the Bar and was fairly new, Mr Lalwani said: “But ultimately, the submissions were filed by me and I take full responsibility for this error. I should have checked.”

Ms Tan, presiding over the matter, said a simple search on a legal research portal would have revealed the case did not exist. The case name was fabricated, and while the citation number was genuine, it was linked to a wholly unrelated matter.

She called Mr Lalwani’s explanations “troubling”, and noted that he was less than candid with the court and sought to downplay the gravity of his improper conduct.

Ms Tan said that as the senior lawyer on file, Mr Lalwani had a duty to supervise the work of his junior colleague, and called his conduct improper, unreasonable and negligent.

In Singapore, lawyers and self-represented persons are allowed to use generative AI tools in preparing their court documents, but must abide by a relevant guide issued in 2024. The guide explains that such tools are unable to discern facts and are not designed to function as search engines. While its outputs may sound persuasive, there is a risk they are inaccurate or fabricated.

Court users must independently verify that all materials placed before the court exist and are accurate, said Ms Tan.

Both Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and High Court judge Aidan Xu have also addressed the impact of AI on the legal fraternity, with Justice Xu noting in an August speech that advocates and solicitors “should know better” than to tender fictitious case citations.

Ms Tan said lawyers must recognise that while technological tools may enhance the practice of law, these tools also have their inherent limitations.

She added: “This incident serves as a solemn reminder that every advocate and solicitor bears a personal responsibility to comply with his or her professional duties.