Summary: Federal judge: No AI in my courtroom unless a human verifies its accuracy

“All attorneys appearing before the Court must file on the docket a certificate attesting either that no portion of the filing was drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence was checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being,” according to a new “judge-specific requirement” in Starr’s courtroom.

The filings included names of made-up cases and a series of “excerpts” from bogus rulings that cited additional fake precedents invented by AI.

A federal judge in Texas has a new rule for lawyers in his courtroom: No submissions written by artificial intelligence unless the AI’s output is checked by a human.

Starr, a Trump nominee in US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, said that AI “platforms are incredibly powerful and have many uses in the law: form divorces, discovery requests, suggested errors in documents, anticipated questions at oral argument.

Going forward, Starr’s order said the court “will strike any filing from an attorney who fails to file a certificate on the docket attesting that the attorney has read the Court’s judge-specific requirements and understands that he or she will be held responsible under Rule 11 for the contents of any filing that he or she signs and submits to the Court, regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence drafted any portion of that filing.”

Similar Articles

Federal judge: No AI in my courtroom unless a human verifies its accuracy

Judge wary of AI “hallucinations,” says it isn’t acceptable for legal briefing.

Read the complete article at: arstechnica.com