Chat Gpt

Author: Gist Correspondent

A New Mexico lawyer has been fined $5,000 and held in contempt after submitting a murder appeal brief containing fabricated witnesses and false police testimony allegedly generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

The New Mexico Supreme Court sanctioned attorney Stephen Aarons on Wednesday for failing to verify the accuracy of information contained in the court filing.

The court said the brief contained “false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses” and criticised Aarons for showing a lack of remorse and concern for his client.

The justices also ordered that the matter be referred to an attorney disciplinary board for further investigation.

Aarons, who is based in Santa Fe, told Reuters that he used ChatGPT to summarise trial proceedings after taking up the defendant’s appeal last year.

He said he did not understand the extent to which artificial intelligence could “hallucinate” or generate false information.

“I am remorseful but hopeful that the disciplinary board takes into account it was an honest mistake,” Aarons said, describing the incident as a lesson for professionals using AI technology.

The lawyer was representing Oscar Renee Sandoval, who was convicted of murdering the mother of his children and sentenced to life imprisonment after pleading not guilty.

Sandoval’s appeal remains pending and has since been assigned to New Mexico public defender Kim Chavez Cook.

The Supreme Court had previously ordered Aarons to explain how fabricated material found in his brief came to be included in the appeal.

Among the false material was an apparent fictional account stating that the shooter was wearing dark pants and a white shirt, according to the court.

Aarons told the justices during an August 21 hearing that he had fed a computer-generated transcript and other case materials into ChatGPT, believing the programme would produce a “bulletproof summary”.

The incident is the latest in a growing list of cases in which lawyers have faced sanctions for relying on AI-generated legal material without adequate verification.

Courts in the United States have previously disciplined lawyers after AI tools generated non-existent legal authorities, fabricated case citations or misrepresented existing law.

However, the New Mexico case is particularly notable because the AI-assisted filing allegedly went beyond fabricated legal citations to include invented witness testimony in a criminal appeal.

During the hearing, Justice C. Shannon Bacon expressed disbelief that Aarons was unaware of the widely reported risks associated with AI-generated misinformation.

“Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what’s going on in the world?” Bacon asked.

She added that the problem of lawyers relying on AI “hallucinations” had become a widely reported issue.

OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment, while the Dona Ana County District Attorney’s Office also declined to comment.