1. Home
2. Daily News
3. When queried by judge, chatbot had less faith…

Technology

When queried by judge, chatbot had less faith in its output than expert who used it

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 16, 2024, 2:24 pm CDT

When confronted with evidence that an expert witness used a chatbot to cross-check lost-value calculations, a judge in Saratoga County, New York, decided to query the source.

“Are your calculations reliable enough for use in court?” New York Judge Jonathan Schopf asked Microsoft Copilot, a generative artificial intelligence chatbot.

“When it comes to legal matters,” the chatbot replied, “any calculations or data need to meet strict standards. I can provide accurate info, but it should always be verified by experts and accompanied by professional evaluations before being used in court.”

Schopf also asked Microsoft Copilot to calculate the value of $250,000 invested in the Vanguard Balanced Index Fund from Dec. 31, 2004, through Jan. 31, 2021. He posed the question on three different computers and got three different answers: $949,070, $948,209 and $951,000.

Ars Technica covered Schopf’s Oct. 10 decision.

Schopf “found that Copilot had less faith in its outputs than [the expert witness] seemingly did,” Ars Technica concluded.

The expert testified for a trust beneficiary who said a Bahamas rental property should have been sold as an estate asset in 2004, rather than by the trustee in January 2022. During that time, the trustee, the beneficiary’s aunt, had sometimes traveled to the property, combining upkeep with vacation use.

The property sold for $485,000 in 2022, netting $323,721 after operating losses. The son had contended that he could have invested the sales proceeds if the property had been sold earlier.

Citing inherent unreliability issues surrounding AI, Schopf concluded that lawyers have a duty to disclose its use and the evidence that it generated. The courts should then have a hearing to determine whether the evidence can be admitted based on general acceptance in the relevant field.

Schopf commented on the chatbot use, despite saying the son failed to prove that his aunt breached her fiduciary duties. And if she had breached her duties, the son failed to prove damages, the judge said.

Ars Technica spoke with Eric Goldman, an internet law expert, who told the publication that attorneys retain expert witnesses for their specialized expertise.

“It doesn’t make any sense for an expert witness to essentially outsource that expertise to generative AI,” Goldman said.

The case is Matter of Weber.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Child-porn prosecution of Netflix for ‘Cuties’…

Prosecutors

Child-porn prosecution of Netflix for ‘Cuties’ film looks like ‘mosaic’ of bad faith, 5th Circuit says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 21, 2023, 9:35 am CST

A federal appeals court has upheld a judge’s preliminary injunction barring a Texas child-pornography prosecution of Netflix for streaming the movie Cuties, agreeing with a Netflix lawyer that the case looks like a “mosaic” of bad faith.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans ruled for Netflix in a Dec. 18 opinion by Judge Don R. Willett, an appointee of former President Donald Trump.

Law.com and Law360 have coverage, while How Appealing links to additional articles.

The appeals court described Cuties as “a controversial film starring preteen girls who participate in a dance competition.” According to a description by the Cato Institute, which joined an amicus brief supporting the injunction against prosecution, the message of the film is critical of the influence of social media on the young girls, whose “sexualized routines” copied what they saw online.

In one scene, the girls watch a video on their phones in which a dancer briefly flashes her breast. Netflix said it can verify that the dancer was older than age 18 at the time of filming.

Tyler County, Texas, District Attorney Lucas Babin at first obtained an indictment charging Netflix under an obscenity law that was later struck down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment in a different case. Babin dropped the charge but obtained four new indictments under a law that bans promotion of sexual conduct by a child younger than age 18.

Three of the indictments were based on three different clothed minor girls in the film, and the fourth was related to the actress with the exposed breast.

To obtain the indictment, Netflix alleges, Babin “restricted the grand jury’s view to only those scenes and stills that he [had] personally curated and stripped of their proper context.”

Netflix sued in federal court, seeking an injunction against Babin’s prosecution.

The Younger abstention doctrine, which is named after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1971 decision in Younger v. Harris, is not an impediment, the 5th Circuit said. The doctrine bars federal court interference with state court proceedings, as long as the defendant has an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges in the state forum, Willett explained.

“A state has no legitimate interest, however, in a prosecution brought in bad faith or to harass,” Willett wrote. “Nor, for that matter, does a defendant have an adequate opportunity to assert constitutional violations in the state proceeding when the prosecution itself is the constitutional violation. Thus, in exceptional cases in which a state prosecutor is credibly accused of bad faith and has no reasonable hope of obtaining a valid conviction against the defendant, comity-infused deference gives way, and a federal court may exercise its equitable power to enjoin the prosecution.”

The 5th Circuit said it can’t conclude that a district court erred in enjoining the prosecution “at this preliminary stage and on the fact-intensive record before us.”