With the advent of artificial intelligence, communication and the way it is structured and presented has been completely transformed, but the increasing reliance on AI for content brings several other problems. A misinformation expert recently came under fire for using the technology to compile his documents for legal filings, which ended up including fake quotes. Ironically, the filing of this case is an effort to combat the use of AI-generated content to mislead voters before the election. The researcher now admits to having used ChatGPT to simplify quotes and believes the error should not have had an impact on the points presented in the declaration.

A misinformation expert has now admitted that ChatGPT was used for his court filings but was unaware of any AI ‘hallucinations’ that added inaccurate details to the documents.

Jeff Hancock is a Stanford professor and misinformation expert who filed an affidavit for a case and supported a Minnesota law prohibiting the use of Deep Fake technology to influence elections. What was initially intended as a prosecution against the use of AI to misrepresent users, is now facing massive criticism as there are ironically details generated by AI in legal documents that include false information, making them unreliable and inaccurate.

Now, the misinformation expert, in an additional statement, has admitted that he used ChatGPT-4o to organize his quotes but didn’t realize that it was adding fake details or false references. He denied using the tool for other parts of the document and said the error was unintentional. In a later filing, he wrote:

I wrote and reviewed the substance of the declaration, and I stand firmly behind every claim made in it, all of which are supported by the latest scientific research in the field and reflect my opinion as an expert on the impact of AI technology. regarding misinformation and its social impact.

Hancock further explained that he used Google Scholar and GPT-4o to create a list of citations, but not to compile the document. He emphasized his lack of awareness of AI hallucinations that ultimately led to misquotes. Hancock then focused on the points made in the declaration and how he defended those points from being swayed by the confusion. He revealed:

I did not intend to mislead the Court or legal counsel. I express my sincere regret for any confusion this may have caused. Therefore, I support all the substantive points of the declaration.

Whether or not the court will accept Hancock’s explanation for the errors in his submission highlights the risks of using AI tools in a legal context.