Judge admits nearly being persuaded by AI hallucinations in court filing
A plaintiff’s law firms were sanctioned and ordered to pay $31,100 after submitting fake AI citations that nearly ended up in a court ruling. Michael Wilner, a retired US magistrate judge serving as special master in US District Court for the Central District of California, admitted that he initially thought the citations were real and “almost” put them into an order.
These aren’t the first lawyers caught submitting briefs with fake citations generated by AI. In some cases, opposing attorneys figure out what happened and notify the judge. In this instance, the judge noticed that some citations were un-verifiable but was troubled by how close he came to including the bogus citations in an order.
“Directly put, Plaintiff’s use of AI affirmatively misled me,” Judge Wilner wrote in a May 5 order. “I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them—only to find that they didn’t exist. That’s scary. It almost led to the scarier outcome (from my perspective) of including those bogus materials in a judicial order. Strong deterrence is needed to make sure that attorneys don’t succumb to this easy shortcut.”
Related Knowledge Center: Artificial intelligence
On top of a failing business model, newsrooms must navigate the powerful — and not fully reliable — new capabilities of artificial intelligence and the deployment of large language models.
State of the business model | Copyright and intellectual property
Related Knowledge Center: Information integrity
In an increasingly fractured media landscape, truth has been a casualty in the public discussion. Coverage has been warped by the business needs of struggling news organizations, and a significant segment of the public relies on bad-faith outlets that are little more than propagandists. While fact-checking has become routine, some organizations are exploring other ways to combat the trends. And misinformation spewed by AI-driven chatbots has become more of a feature than simply a bug.
Fact-checking and its detractors