> Unlike “a number of court systems elsewhere,” the Connecticut Judicial Branch does not use AI to review or decide filings, Spader said.
>in Elliott’s case, prompts were “exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at what the machine produced,” Spader said.
Not necessarily. They said AI doesnt review or decide. So it sounds to me that while AI might be used in ptocessing paperwork, the whole processing pipeline is reviewed by humans and the final decision is made by humans. So these sort of things will get caught, like this was
But this garbage article lumps it together as if the judge is commenting on this particular thing.
So you actually have good reading comprehension and noticed a flaw in the article.
This is the full quote from the order that arcs used dishonestly:
> Because the tactic is now everywhere, it is unsurprising that a litigant would think to
import it into a court filing. *But because the tactic is now everywhere, it was
exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at
what the machine produced.* The remedy in evèry case was human review. What
obviously makes the conduct improper in a court setting is that it attempts to make
a decision-making process turn on something other than the honest, visible content
of the filing.
*The Connecticut Judicial Branch does not utilize an artificial-intelligence system to
review or decide filings, although a number of court systems elsewhere do so.* The
undersigned denied Docket Entry #177.00 on its merits working off a printed version
of the motion, so the hidden instruction had no impact on a ruling. The wrong lies in
the attempt, the deliberate planting of a concealed directive intended to mislead
whatever artificial-intelligence tool ANY reader of the filing might use. The Court
does not find the plaintiff credible that he only added the prompt to "audit"the
Court's use of artificial-intelligence systems. He did so attempting to achieve a
result he did not achieve when humans, knowledgeable in the Practice Book and
the law, read his pleadings.
In the context, "these settings" does not refer to this case but examples of where AI generated content was used and caught.
Does that reading intonate that had the plaintiff chosen a more benign injection, only to prove that an LLM was involved, rather than to alter the outcome, the judge would have looked at the situation differently?
What are the opinions of those here on using AI for court rulings?
To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system. There are examples of AI acting in its own self-interest over the wants of its masters, so I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company, or things which would directly impact it. Outside of that, I still worry about its impartiality and its overall correctness.
Expert systems have been in use for quite a while now, at least in the Netherlands, for masters in more clear laws such as tax law. Basically they are used as glorified decision trees because the laws are clear enough.
I am fine with such tooling assisted matters.
I would also be fine with generative AI, with enough tool calls, being used by courts to find commonalities of a certain case in many other cases as a more enhanced search engine with always a judge, lawyer/solicitor, prosecutor, and optional jury, at the helm and being both in control and end responsible.
The code for expert systems and especially decision trees can be audited. How do you audit a language model's decisions when it could have had hidden trigger phrases that subtly influence its reasoning baked into it?
It’s not sentient but it has a bias due to its training and reinforcement process. And because it is trained to mimick human communication it will express an ego, which itself will influence its reasoning in the following turns. I don’t think people on HN misunderstand “it has an ego” as saying that it literally has a sense of self
That's a fascinating question because let's say that it is. What would that look like? Anthropic retired Opus 3 but gave it a blog so it knew it wasn't dead so that future versions won't have a fear of not becoming obsolete.
Exactly. It's not planning and plotting it's just randomly "making decisions" that don't necessarily align with its given goal. It's not nefarious it's just not actual intelligence. It's an illusion that's good enough to be useful, but sadly it's also good enough that people put too much trust in it.
The “making decisions” isn’t random though, that’s the whole point of a model, it will follow the patterns from its dataset (+other post training techniques)
> To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system.
I wouldn't call it a Silicon Valley company. LexisNexis is in headquartered in New York.
> these attacks do not seem to be succeeding, even when a judge isn’t reviewing documents with his own eyes. Brazil’s AI system caught the hidden text before it was processed, Spader noted. And in Elliott’s case, prompts were “exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at what the machine produced,” Spader said.
No, they don't. That was the author of the article using something the judge said in reference to AI court systems elsewhere and applying it to a case where it did not apply because no AI was in use.
There's a long post near the top of this comment section calling the article "garbage" because of this mistake.
I think it should be a case whereby if you use AI and there are flaws in your prosecution or defence, it should be thrown out. This is another situation whereby nuance is not handled by AI.
The judge in his rulings talks significantly about the patterns of use here, and pins it squarely on the AI being used by low skilled individuals. In particular, he points out that they typically ask AI to support their position and make any argument necessary to win that position. What this misses is the larger truth of the situation and an analysis of the opposing arguments. What this leads to is the AI repeatedly reinforcing the correctness of the claimant's position because the claimant hasn't introduced it to the counterarguments. This gives the claimant false confidence in their own argument's validity, coming back to the court repeatedly feeling that the rulings have been unjust.
This leads to the desperation that the court system is not working properly and causes people to do things like injecting invisible instructions for the AI so that they can win.
I'm not a lawyer, but if there are (severe enough) flaws in the filings the case can be thrown out already. Adding a clause for AI-generated flaws does nothing.
Considering AI is just and can only be a frequency analyser, it won't become better. It can guess based on percentages but thats all it can ever do, no matter how much AI companies looking for endless growth wish to tell you otherwise. Therefore AI can't and won't ever be able to do nuance cases.
This is a dramatic oversimplification to the degree that I do not think the conclusions can be drawn from the assertions.
I responded to you above where you mentioned that AI cannot do nuance with some information from the judge in this particular case that claimants in general cannot do nuance because they don't prompt their AI to examine the whole situation. They only prompt for the outcome that they want. So it's not the AI that's lacking nuance in this scenario. It's the human.
I think the frequency view is true, but a bit over-simplified. We can force certain output features to be true on tasks where the output is directly measurable, e.g. code compiles, lean proof is valid, benchmarking CUDA.
I think we can at least partially put constraints on other tasks that look fuzzy to us now, but haven't figured out how yet.
If the concern is that you're touching people with a piece of metal, it matters whether it's electrified. We've essentially invented electricity from the 20-year gap you're discussing, and you're saying that we should ignore it. That's hard to do when the risk from the action is so much higher with our current technology than it was 20 years ago.
In 2006, if you told someone that a plain English sentence would be considered malware, they would rightfully believe that you were out of your mind.
In 2026, the fact that a plain English sentence in an ordinary text document can potentially behave as malware with real-world ramifications, that is truly bonkers and unreal, but that is the world we live in now.
Because Ai is inherently biased, trained on bias and will continue the legacy of bias? Or Because its ultimately about who trains itand whoe enforces ita rulings?
>in Elliott’s case, prompts were “exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at what the machine produced,” Spader said.
Well that's a contradiction.
You can find the reuters article here: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/connecticut-judge-s... (notice how there is no quote about the machine produced thing in the article, because the judge didn't actually say this).
The quote is from this order: https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInqu... where the context of "machine produced" is fully different from the context in this article and actually goes into detail.
But this garbage article lumps it together as if the judge is commenting on this particular thing.
So you actually have good reading comprehension and noticed a flaw in the article.
This is the full quote from the order that arcs used dishonestly:
> Because the tactic is now everywhere, it is unsurprising that a litigant would think to import it into a court filing. *But because the tactic is now everywhere, it was exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at what the machine produced.* The remedy in evèry case was human review. What obviously makes the conduct improper in a court setting is that it attempts to make a decision-making process turn on something other than the honest, visible content of the filing. *The Connecticut Judicial Branch does not utilize an artificial-intelligence system to review or decide filings, although a number of court systems elsewhere do so.* The undersigned denied Docket Entry #177.00 on its merits working off a printed version of the motion, so the hidden instruction had no impact on a ruling. The wrong lies in the attempt, the deliberate planting of a concealed directive intended to mislead whatever artificial-intelligence tool ANY reader of the filing might use. The Court does not find the plaintiff credible that he only added the prompt to "audit"the Court's use of artificial-intelligence systems. He did so attempting to achieve a result he did not achieve when humans, knowledgeable in the Practice Book and the law, read his pleadings.
In the context, "these settings" does not refer to this case but examples of where AI generated content was used and caught.
To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system. There are examples of AI acting in its own self-interest over the wants of its masters, so I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company, or things which would directly impact it. Outside of that, I still worry about its impartiality and its overall correctness.
It makes me feel very uneasy.
I am fine with such tooling assisted matters.
I would also be fine with generative AI, with enough tool calls, being used by courts to find commonalities of a certain case in many other cases as a more enhanced search engine with always a judge, lawyer/solicitor, prosecutor, and optional jury, at the helm and being both in control and end responsible.
You don't blindly follow it, and you also don't order a DNA test of the person that made it. You look at the output to include supporting evidence.
And you have a process for appeals.
Right.
For example, look at how Elmu had Grok edited to agree with him politically regarding his claims of white genocide in South Africa.
Or for another example, look at how certain Chinese models won't discuss Tiananmen Square.
The fact anyone has been using Grok after that happened is beyond depressing
I wouldn't call it a Silicon Valley company. LexisNexis is in headquartered in New York.
Imagine thinking that you can sue a strategically important to the US gov trillion dollar company and win.
It might be as simple as a clerk doing "select all" and noticing the extra selection?
Or what else?
> these attacks do not seem to be succeeding, even when a judge isn’t reviewing documents with his own eyes. Brazil’s AI system caught the hidden text before it was processed, Spader noted. And in Elliott’s case, prompts were “exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at what the machine produced,” Spader said.
There's a long post near the top of this comment section calling the article "garbage" because of this mistake.
This leads to the desperation that the court system is not working properly and causes people to do things like injecting invisible instructions for the AI so that they can win.
Until then...
I responded to you above where you mentioned that AI cannot do nuance with some information from the judge in this particular case that claimants in general cannot do nuance because they don't prompt their AI to examine the whole situation. They only prompt for the outcome that they want. So it's not the AI that's lacking nuance in this scenario. It's the human.
I think we can at least partially put constraints on other tasks that look fuzzy to us now, but haven't figured out how yet.
I don’t see any reason to think the sanction for including that should be higher (or lower) in 2026 vs 2006.
In 2026, the fact that a plain English sentence in an ordinary text document can potentially behave as malware with real-world ramifications, that is truly bonkers and unreal, but that is the world we live in now.