Ad/Marketing Communication This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary…

Ad/Marketing Communication This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary…

“…[An expert’s] resort to AI, Chat-GPT suggests to me that, in the absence of evidence, I ought not infer expertise in radiology in those without qualifications in that discipline.”

It’s unclear how widely AI obfuscation is understood within the legal community, but any system actively learning to cheat is inherently concerning. There are several questions that warrant further exploration and broader debate

“But that does not mean that citing invented judgments is harmless. It causes the Tribunal and HMRC to waste time and public money, and this reduces the resources available to progress the cases of other court users who are waiting for their appeals to be determined. As Judge Kastel said, the practice also "promotes cynicism" about judicial precedents, and this is important, because the use of precedent is "a cornerstone of our legal system" and "an indispensable foundation upon which to decide what is the law and its application to individual cases"

“At the hearing, Mr Latif explained that when HMRC asked him to send a copy of his letter dated 14 May 2021, he copied and pasted the letter into the artificial intelligence system ChatGPT, telling it to make the letter shorter and more formal. He said that the original letter was long winded, and he wanted to make it a more appropriate and relevant communication for HMRC. He said that it was not his intention to cause confusion or fabricate anything, that in his opinion the ChatGPT letter had the same context as his original letter, and that his intention was purely to use technology to help him as he works in IT.”