“…one of the biggest fields of legal activity in years to come is likely to be the claims that will be brought in respect of the negligent or inappropriate use of AI, and also the negligent or inappropriate failure to use AI. Lawyers will, as I have frequently said, be at the forefront of these AI liability disputes…”

“(a) The Applicant's views on methods of search based on artificial intelligence have no reasonable prospect of showing error of law in the s 12 decision, not least because no error of law ground is advanced, but additionally because of the principle summarised by the FTT in Arthur (see above) and in Ryan. (b) In line with Oakley, little weight should be attached to the Applicant's assertions in reliance on responses to "quick requests of AI chatbots": Grounds, p 3.”

“Firstly, we must assess the weight that we give to the ChatGPT evidence. We place little weight upon that evidence because there is no evidence before us as to the sources the AI tool considers when finalising its response nor is the methodology used by the AI tool explained. If comparisons are drawn to expert evidence, an expert would be required to explain their expertise, the sources that they rely upon and the methodology that they applied before weight was given to such expert evidence. In the circumstances we give little weight to the ChatGPT evidence that searches should have been conducted in the form set out within that evidence.”

“… In answer to the question whether the project was an overall advance, Mr Cahill drew a distinction between existing data (e.g. the database of addresses held by Royal Mail) and software/AI "building blocks" (e.g. the Chat GPT translation tool) on the one hand and "doing something on top" (e.g. code to connect the Chat GPT translation tool with data sources), which is the new work done by GOL.  Mr Lewis suggested that GOL could do the same thing (using existing blocks and writing code around them).  Mr Cahill said that he was not saying that no one else could do what GOL is doing if they knew what to do, but no one had done that…”

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

“Looking further into the future, one could imagine that AI may very well be able to assimilate much larger quantities of data than a normal human judge. One could then be faced with the situation in which an AI system might be a better decision maker than a human being in those circumstances...”

"His final submissions before me also refer to answers provided to a series of questions put by him to ChatGPT, criticising counsel, solicitors, and judges, and he prays in aid these answers in support of his case since they have been provided by artificial intelligence which ‘does not have personal opinions, beliefs or feelings.’