Ellen Levy

Lol this isn't true and telling people this is irresponsible. Clause is really great at providing a broad overview of concepts and appearing correct but not great at drafting documents from scratch or making sure all legal protections are there Sometimes situations need different contracts than originally presented or needs multiple contracts. We see ai generated contracts that appear to be well drafted but are missing key provisions. Claude also doesn't know to ask that follow-up questions that can have deal altering implications.

Legal AI is good for consumers and will be despite additional regulations. I think this is more complicated than lawyers just wanting to protect their industry. Right now AI is wrong a lot. It hallucinates and provides incorrect information. It's horrific at drafting contract from scratch. I see it everyday at Soxton. AI is great at explaining broader concepts and getting folks to the right resources. We are a d2c/b law firm using ai first to lower prices but still ensure accuracy by having human oversight. We're $20 a month and $100 a contract w/ an experienced lawyer in the loop.

At Soxton.AI, we’ve helped hundreds of startups with thousands of contracts. We’re just getting started. Today we’re launching a suite of new features to help startups move faster and be VC-ready from day one including: - Due diligence audit to spot (and fix) legal issues before they become deal blockers - Initial cap table setup - Funding scenario modeling so you can understand dilution and outcomes before you raise Sign up for our waitlist here: @SoxtonAI

Felt that one in Menlo Park.

Top-5 DUB! #GoStanford

MEGHA GANNE CLINCHES THE BIG MATCH WITH THIS INCREDIBLE PUTT IN SUDDEN DEATH 😱🌲

4.8 magnitude #earthquake. 3 km from #Berkeley, #CA, United States earthquaketrack.com/quakes/2025-09…

Wow. That was definitely an #earthquake here in the Bay Area!!!

Multi-agent systems were found to use 15X more tokens than regular AI chat. This is Jevons paradox. Any efficiency improvement in AI models will quickly get eaten up by doing far more complex work with AI Agents. We’re only at the start of this curve right now.

This is so impressive… Such a validation of the unique character of the coach, the team, and the university.

📍 Earthquake detected 📍 Magnitude 4.2 - 3 km WNW of Dublin, California at 2025-03-17 07:46:33 PM: earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/ev… #earthquake #ca #sf #bayarea

Congratulations on the incredibly well-deserved recognition @michaelcrow!

Next week, we’ll welcome 40,000+ new #sundevils, including 17,000 first-year students, more than half of whom are AZ residents – a new @ASU record. We exist to enable quality education access and success for AZ learners and we're making it happen. news.asu.edu/20240813-unive…

NINE golds and 2️⃣4️⃣ medals overall for the Card 🥇🥈🥉 📲 gostanford.com/paris2024 #GoStanford

For the last three presidential elections, I've been making the case that Donald Trump threatens the rule of law, creates constant chaos, and always puts his own interests above America's. All of these things make it harder for American businesses to operate efficiently and plan for the future. Last week, I was interviewed by CNN's Matt Egan about my support for Vice President Harris in her campaign for the presidency, and why I believe the Biden/Harris Administration has been much better for business than Trump. I repeated my simple argument: that rule of law and stable leadership matter more to long-term business success than corporate tax cuts and lighter regulation. When Egan asked me if there was anything I disagreed with the Biden Administration on, I said that the Federal Trade Commission's Chair, Lina Khan, is "not helping America in her job and what she's doing, and so I would hope that Vice President Harris would replace her." Senator Bernie Sanders took note of my statement and tweeted the following: "Here’s why we have to overturn Citizens United & end Big Money in politics: Billionaire Reid Hoffman donated $7 million to the Harris campaign. Now, he wants her, as president, to fire an outstanding member of the Biden Administration, FTC Chair Lina Khan. Not acceptable." Since then, multiple media outlets have run with versions of this story that falsely suggest I've been "buying levels of influence," or at least trying to do so. Senator Sanders has produced a video clip ("paid for by Friends of Bernie Sanders") that repeats his initial inaccurate claims: "[Hoffman] said, 'You know, I like Kamala Harris, I'm contributing to her campaign, but if she gets elected, I want her to get rid of Lina Khan'…This guy is not dumb. He wants something for his investment." Given the Senator's serial mischaracterizations of my actions and my sentiments, I want to be fully clear here: First, I want to reiterate my unequivocal support for Vice President Harris in her candidacy for the presidency. I have been a strong Biden/Harris supporter throughout their administration, and I am now thrilled to support Vice President Harris at the top of the ticket. I trust her to make great policies and decisions for the American people. Second, I want to be clear about the timing of the “Biden/Harris campaign contributions I've made during this cycle: In January 2024, I gave the legal maximum by contributing $923,000 to the Biden Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee that supports the President, the DNC, and Democratic state parties. I've also made significant contributions to Future Forward, a Democratic super PAC: $6 million in March, $1 million in April, and $3 million in June. None of these donations were made to Vice President Harris directly, and none occurred anywhere close to my CNN interview with Egan. In fact, I made all three donations to Future Forward while President Biden was still the presumptive Democratic nominee. So why does Senator Sanders keep falsely claiming I donated $7 million to Vice President Harris, and then quickly lobbied her to "fire" Khan? I assume it's because Matt Stoller, a labor activist who formerly worked as Senator Sanders' advisor, and is also a former co-worker of Khan's, tweeted this false statement: "Democratic Silicon Valley billionaire Reid Hoffman gives $7m to Harris, immediately demands she fire FTC Chair Lina Khan." Perhaps they were confusing me with Netflix founder Reed Hastings, who made news two days before my interview with CNN's Matt Egan, for donating $7 million to the Republican Accountability PAC, a super PAC supporting Vice President Harris. In any case, Senator Sanders and others continue to run with this disinformation, presumably for typical political manipulation purposes. For my own part, I want to make it very clear that I've never spoken with Vice President Harris about Lina Khan, or even about the FTC generally. I have never demanded, nor would I ever presume to demand, that Vice President Harris fire Lina Khan if she becomes President. I will, however, continue to support Vice President Harris in her campaign for Presidency, regardless of what views or opinions she expresses about Lina Khan or the FTC. That's because my primary motivation for participating in politics over the last eight years has been to oppose Donald Trump's ongoing attempts to break American democracy by corrupting and hollowing out its most cherished institutions. Unlike some, I have not forgotten Trump’s support of the Jan 6th insurrection and its violence, nor his attempt to coerce state officials to “find” him some more votes. Like millions of Americans, I was both extremely moved by the love of country President Joe Biden showed when he dropped out of the 2024 race, and equally energized by how impressively Vice President Harris has united diverse constituencies around the shared purpose of protecting America from a transactional demagogue who always elevates his own interests above the public good. I trust Senator Sanders feels the same. As for Lina Khan, I think her ongoing efforts to dismantle companies weakens America's innovation economy. I spoke up here, because the impact on how we invest and create the next generation of entrepreneurial companies is real – as is her attempt to limit how effectively large technology companies can compete globally. To give her real credit where credit is due, however, her efforts to ban junk fees, take on companies that defraud consumers through deceptive billing practices are commendable. The same is true for her work in limiting non-compete clauses in ways that will translate into increased wages and more vibrant labor markets, including in Silicon Valley where the free flow of human talent is crucial to the tech's industry dynamism and generativity. Finally, while I'm not one of the Friends of Bernie paying for his false ads about me, I do support his efforts to eliminate Super PACs. I have supported efforts on this for many years, including Professor Lessig’s efforts. As long as current rules remain in place, I will exercise my option to donate in ways the FEC allows. Ultimately, though, I think our politics would be much healthier if we put much lower caps on political giving and eliminated super PACs that enable individuals, corporations, unions, and other special-interest groups to spend in especially outsized ways.

Stanford #ParisOlympics highlights (7/31): Ledecky gets gold/Olympic record in 1500m Huske gets silver in 100m 5 Cardinal score in USA W Water Polo win Smith gets assist in USWNT win Plummer gets win in 1st start for USA W Volleyball Kelsey Bing gets 4 saves for USA field hockey

Olympic event medals, by country (and Cardinal 😏): 🇺🇸 20 🇫🇷 17 🇨🇳 14 🇯🇵 13 🇰🇷 11 🇬🇧 11 🇦🇺 9 🇮🇹 8 🌲 𝟔 🇨🇦 5 🇭🇰 3 🇰🇿 3 🇿🇦 3 🇧🇷 3 🇸🇪 3 #GoStanford | #OlympiansMadeHere

Please read my statement below regarding the Trump shooter and ASU social media rumors. president.asu.edu/statements/asu…

Top 25 colleges with most athletes on Team USA for the #ParisOlympics. One university stands out. @GoStanford!!! #ParisOlympics #TeamUSA 😉🇺🇸

MAGA fundraiser David Sacks’ recent open letter explaining his support for Trump over Biden got it wrong on just about every count, awkwardly regurgitating pro-Trump groupthink. David makes four specious main points: (1) Trump’s legal troubles result from Joe Biden’s puppeteering (“lawfare”); (2) America’s economy is struggling due to Biden’s leadership (“the A/B test”); (3) Biden should fear Russia too much to keep supporting Ukraine; (4) Trump had an “orderly process of legal immigration” that Biden disrupted. Let’s compare these claims to some easily knowable and known facts. 1) Biden isn’t the reason Trump is a convicted felon. What’s more likely: That Joe Biden controls the actions of diverse local judges, prosecutors, and jurors – a charge for which there is no evidence? Or that Donald Trump is simply a criminal -- a charge for which the evidence is abundant? Trump became a convicted felon in New York City, where he lived for 73 years. His own lawyers signed off on the 12 jurors, who unanimously agreed Trump committed all 34 felony counts. (As I’ve explained elsewhere (bit.ly/45Qghyh), these are serious crimes that should disqualify him from leadership roles in business or politics.) Meanwhile, in the Hunter investigation, President Biden kept a Trump-appointed prosecutor on the case, before a Trump-appointed federal judge. When a jury convicted Hunter of felonies, the President promised not to pardon him. Joe Biden believes in the rule of law. Courts and juries aren’t perfect, but they are the best system we have for defending the rule of law against powerful criminals. Trump toadies attack America when they attack our courts and juries. 2) America has a successful economy and President. America today has the world’s greatest economy. Of course it’s not perfect. There’s no such thing. But our economy under Joe Biden is the strongest on the planet. David helpfully sets out to compare the economic performances of presidents 45 and 46. He explains that “In tech, we call this an A/B test.” Great! I know how this one works. We just look at the data. When Biden & Obama took office in 2009, they inherited an economy deep in crisis. We called it the Great Recession. When they peacefully stepped down in 2017, the US was in a 6th straight year of economic expansion. Unemployment below 5%. Stock markets up >150%. That’s what Donald Trump inherited; then he left office four years later as the first President since Hoover to oversee a net loss of jobs. Under Trump, crime was up. The national debt skyrocketed. Even before the pandemic, Trump had grown the federal deficit nearly 50%, to $1 trillion. Joe Biden promised to bring America back from by bringing us together, and that’s what happened. He worked with both parties to pass critical recovery and infrastructure bills. Crime and unemployment are near 50-year lows. The Dow has hit an all-time high. And a recent IMF report says US economic dominance will keep growing – double any other rich country. To sum up: (a) Biden and Obama grew the economy handily; (b) Trump’s violent, chaotic, one-party approach blew it up and crushed us with debt; and (c) After four more steady Biden years, America has the world’s strongest economy again. Looks like David is reading his A/B test results backwards. In tech, we call this "being wrong." And now Trump 2024 is seriously and literally promising tariff trade wars and deficit expansions that risk hyperinflation. The macroeconomic case for Biden vs. Trump is embarrassingly one-sided. But David wants to go back to Casino Bankruptcy Don? Hard pass. 3) Trump’s 2nd term would be disastrous for world peace. If you hate war, today is the best time ever to have lived. Thank Pax Americana, the international system we built after defeating the Nazis. In that system, nations that invade their neighbors pay consequences. That’s been true from FDR, to NATO, to JFK, to Reagan, to Bush 41, and now Joe Biden. And Americans have benefited enormously. Russian arch-criminal Vladimir Putin hates Pax Americana because he wants to break international law without consequence, and bring America down. In 1994, Ukraine agreed to give up the Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil in exchange for a treaty with Russia and America promising to protect its borders. Today, Putin’s unprovoked invasion has killed, injured, raped, and displaced millions of innocents. We already know how obediently Trump echoes Putin’s propaganda. Now David joins him. They say Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was somehow America’s fault – because in their minds apparently anything other than a flaccid US somehow forces Russia to invade other countries. Appeasement doesn’t work with autocrats like Putin. Trump may not know this, but David ought to. 4) Trump 2024 would make border chaos worse. Without irony, David describes Trump’s 2017-2020 border policy as “an orderly process” that elevated “the principles of American leadership.” We here in the boring old fact-based community remember it as chaotic, bad for business, and un-American. Trump cut legal immigration, including green cards and visas we in business needed. Remember his call for a “total and complete” ban on all Muslims? Remember him separating toddlers from their migrant parents? Some haven’t been reunited even now. But he was sure great at talking about building a wall. (Not so much at actually building one.) Trump 2024 has promised even crazier: military deployments in US cities, mass concentration camps, mass deportations. Volatile, impractical, unethical, illegal: the four horsemen of the Trumpocalpyse. Joe Biden works differently. Backing a tough new law to bring order to the border, he got congressional Democrats to work with deep-red Sen. Jim Lankford (R-OK). They came to bipartisan agreement, and struck a deal. You know – what a functioning, pro-business government is supposed to do. And then, Trump sabotaged it. Literally, he ordered Republicans to block Lankford’s deal from even getting a vote. Border security isn’t a political toy. If wealthy donors like David want order at the border, they should back leaders who can work together to deliver.