The court has said it will examine the matter in detail and has sought the help of the attorney-general, the solicitor-general and the Bar Council of India in the matter
The Supreme Court taking cognisance of a trial court relying on artificial intelligence-generated non-existing verdicts or “AI hallucinations” as they are called while deciding a case and suggesting that it will amount to misconduct is a welcome step, for now. The court has said it will examine the matter in detail and has sought the help of the attorney-general, the solicitor-general and the Bar Council of India in the matter. However, its position that a ruling “based on such non-existent and alleged judgements is not an error in decision-making” would fail to convince people who expect the judiciary to base its decisions on rock-solid facts and logical arguments.
The court had earlier issued guidelines to lawyers, asking them to personally verify the existence of citations they make in courts. Likewise, the judges must also ensure that the citations, whether advanced by a lawyer or found by a judge through AI tools, do exist and are not fake. Especially if the judge bases their decision on them. There must be zero tolerance to the practice of lawyers and judges skipping due diligence to do crucial verification even at a time when the makers of AI tools, themselves, warn of these potential errors.
AI tools can take over the functions of compiling the data, arranging them and even analyzing them. They make human lives easier, sparing human beings from repetitive work. However, its very nature allows errors to creep in and users must exercise caution at every level of the operation, from checking the sources of the data to the final product. There can be deliberate attempts to mislead the user as well.
It’s not the judiciary alone either; every profession that uses technology products has to be mindful of these pitfalls. They have to be on guard till such time that AI companies come up with products that can identify foul play in AI-generated content! The apex court must come up with technically sound advice for the judicial fraternity on the need to ensure that every data or step of analysis they depend on is based on existing data, and not false ones. This could also help people in other professions.
