Hacker News

> Wait, we know it’s not your definition ...

Of course it is not "my definition", as I cited the source of it.

> ... because it’s inapplicable.

Take that up with law.com.

Your goal seemed to be to fact check Claude. I'm not sure why your failure to do so should be taken up with law.com?

Law.com's first definition is inapplicable. That leaves us with the second definition, which says nothing about whether a pledge is legally binding.

AdieuToLogic 8 hours ago [ - ]

> Your goal seemed to be to fact check Claude.

No, this is not my goal. My goal was to illuminate that Claude is a product which produces the most statistically relevant content to a prompt submitted therein.

> I'm not sure why your failure to do so should be taken up with law.com?

The post to which I originally replied cited "Claude" as if it were an authoritative source. To which I disagreed and then provided a definition from law.com. Where is my failure?

> Law.com's first definition is inapplicable.

From the article:

  The pledge includes a commitment by technology companies to 
  bring or buy electricity supplies for their datacenters, 
  either from new power plants or existing plants with 
  expanded output capacity. It also includes commitments from 
  big tech to pay for upgrades to power delivery systems and 
  to enter special electricity rate agreements with utilities.[0]

> That leaves us with the second definition, which says nothing about whether a pledge is legally binding.

To which I originally wrote:

  Without careful review of the document signed, it is 
  impossible to verify which form of the above is applicable 
  in this case.

0 - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/04/us-tech-comp...

staticman2 an hour ago [ - ]

This is exhausting. Claude read the article.

Said article is not about a loan backed by a security agreement. That eliminates law.com definition 1.

Law.com definition 2 is silent on whether pledges are binding.

Thus ended your research.

I don't know why you care if Claude.com is authoritative. Law.com isn't either, the authoritative legal references are paywalled. A law dictionary, as we've demonstrated by law.com's second definition's vagueness, isn't necessarily even the correct reference to consult.

Your failure, I suppose, is that you provided worse information than Claude. I suppose you should have typed "Don't cite Claude please" and moved on.