I'm not going to dogpile criticism on Tailwind or Adam, whose behavior seems quite admirable, but I fundamentally agree with the thrust of the parent comment. It's unfortunate for Tailwind and anyone who was invested in the project's pre-2022 trajectory, but no one is entitled to commercial engagement by unaffiliated third parties.

Here's a similar example from my own experience:

* Last week, I used Grok and Gemini to help me prepare a set of board/committee resolutions and legal agreements that would have easily cost $5k+ in legal fees pre-2022.

* A few days ago, I started a personal blog and created a privacy policy and ToS that I might otherwise have paid lawyers money to draft (linked in my profile for the curious). Or more realistically, I'd have cut those particular corners and accepted the costs of slightly higher legal risk and reduced transparency.

* In total, I've saved into the five figures on legal over the past few years by preparing docs myself and getting only a final sign-off from counsel as needed.

One perspective would be that AI is stealing money from lawyers. My perspective is that it's saving me time, money, and risk, and therefore allowing me to allocate my scarce resources far more efficiently.

Automation inherently takes work away from humans. That's the purpose of automation. It doesn't mean automation is bad; it means we have a new opportunity to apply our collective talents toward increasingly valuable endeavors. If the market ultimately decides that it doesn't have sufficient need for continued Tailwind maintenance to fund it, all that means is that humanity believes Adam and co. will provide more value by letting it go and spending their time differently.

the ai companies are presented as just 'existing', when in fact there is money being made it's just be routed to them.