4.9 C
London
Sunday, December 22, 2024
HomeTechnologyJudge Criticizes 'Expert Witness' for Fabricating Damages with AI Copilot

Judge Criticizes ‘Expert Witness’ for Fabricating Damages with AI Copilot

Date:

Related stories

What Is Outdoor Lighting Service and Why Is It Necessary?

Outdoor lighting services involve the design, installation, and maintenance...

The Complete Guide to Paver Sealing Services: What, Why, and Who to Hire

Paver sealing services are essential for preserving and enhancing...

Excavation Services: What They Are and Why You Need Them

Excavation is the process of preparing a site for...
spot_img

In recent courtroom proceedings, a New York judge admonished an expert witness for utilizing an AI chatbot in formulating expert opinions. The incident involved Charles Ranson, who was engaged in a real estate dispute case where he relied on Microsoft’s AI chatbot, Copilot, to determine the damages appropriate for the plaintiff.

The case concerned a $485,000 rental property in the Bahamas, which was part of a trust for the son of a deceased owner. The deceased owner’s sister, responsible for executing the trust, faced accusations of failing in her fiduciary duties by delaying the property’s sale and using it for personal purposes.

Ranson, despite having experience in trust and estate litigation, lacked specific real estate expertise, compelling him to use Copilot. This information came to light during his testimony when he could not recall significant details about how Copilot was used, including the prompts and sources that informed the damage assessment.

To verify Ranson’s claim, the court conducted its own test with Copilot, asking it to calculate the value of $250,000 invested in a specific fund over a defined period. Copilot’s answers were inconsistent and differed from Ranson’s estimates. When queried about its reliability, Copilot suggested that its outputs should be confirmed by experts.

Judge Jonathan Schopf noted that Ranson asserted the regular use of AI tools like Copilot in his field, though he failed to substantiate this assertion with evidence. The judge further concluded that the delay in the real estate sale actually resulted in additional profit for the son, thus finding no breach of fiduciary duty by the aunt.

This episode is not isolated, as AI chatbots have previously been involved in legal missteps. For instance, lawyers Steven Schwartz and Jae Lee faced repercussions for submitting AI-assisted filings with non-existent case citations. As AI technology becomes increasingly integrated into professional practices, the responsibility remains on users to verify and authenticate the information produced by these tools.

Source link