DAILY NEWS

Stay Ahead, Stay Informed – Every Day

Advertisement
WORLD
Georgia prosecutor was punished for using AI to handle a murder case | International | Central News Agency CNA
jackminion 0



Please agree to our privacy policy to enable news listening. (Central News Agency, Washington, May 5, Comprehensive Foreign News Report) The U.S. Supreme Court of Georgia today punished a state prosecutor, ruling that the prosecutor abused artificial intelligence (AI) tools, resulting in false and misleading case references in a murder verdict. Reuters reported that the Georgia Supreme Court banned Clayton County Assistant District Attorney Deborah Leslie from attending the Chancery for six months and ordered her to complete additional legal education on ethics, legal opinion writing and the proper use of AI. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that a lower court’s 2025 order denying a murder defendant’s request for a new trial contained “multiple fictitious or misattributed case references.” Justice Benjamin Land wrote: “Citations that do not exist or that do not support the arguments cited are violations of this court’s rules and fall far short of the conduct we expect from Georgia lawyers.” State and federal courts across the country have disciplined attorneys who used generative AI tools for legal research and writing without verifying the results. The Georgia case is relatively rare and involves the use of AI by prosecutors. What caused concern was that the mistakes made by the prosecutors in using AI were repeated in the court’s opinion. Neither Leslie nor the Clayton County District Attorney’s Office immediately responded to requests for comment. Leslie previously apologized in a court filing for failing to independently verify the AI-generated citations. The case began when Hannah Payne was sentenced to life in prison plus 13 years for the murder and false imprisonment of Kenneth Herring. The Supreme Court punished the prosecutor while Paine appealed. Leslie’s false case, generated using AI, appeared in a draft order she prepared urging the trial judge to deny the request for retrial. The Georgia Supreme Court said the judge adopted much of the draft order, including fictitious quotes, in rejecting Paine’s request. A Georgia state justice urged judges today to “understand the potential use of artificial intelligence software and the potential risks and benefits” when reviewing draft orders. (Compiled by: Zhang Xiaowen) 1150506 Support Central News Agency’s choice to stand with the facts. Every donation you make is a small amount of support to protect press freedom. Download the Central News Agency’s “First-hand News” APP to get the latest news in real time. The text, pictures and audio and video of this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast or publicly transmitted and used without authorization.



Source link

TECH & AI
Musk Seemingly Tried to Strong-Arm a Settlement Out of OpenAI Before Trial
jackminion 0



Elon Musk is in the middle of a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit alleging that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman violated the company’s principles by pursuing profitability. A new document in the case, filed Monday by OpenAI’s counsel, shows that he tried to put an end to it before it began. Per the filing, Musk sent a text to Brockman two days before the trial was set to begin to try to secure a settlement. On April 25, Musk allegedly sent Brockman a text that was meant (according to a description from the defendant’s attorneys) to gauge interest in a potential settlement. Brockman apparently responded to the message with the suggestion that both sides of the case drop their claims. Musk responded, “By the end of this week, you andSam will be the most hated men in America. If you insist, so it will be.”

OpenAI’s representatives said they “do not intend to introduce a screenshot of the exchange into evidence,” so we’re stuck going off their description of the exchange. It seems the plan is to introduce the text into evidence so that they can ask Brockman about it when he takes the witness stand to testify. OpenAI’s filing did include some context, less about this case and more about Musk’s modus operandi. It included a similar settlement “threat” made during litigation over his bid to acquire Twitter and subsequent failed attempt to get out of the deal. That, OpenAI argued, “tends to prove motive and bias, and, in particular, that Mr. Musk’s motivation in pursuing this lawsuit is to attack a competitor and its principals.” They argued the settlement offer, paired with a threat to make Altman and Brockman “the most hated men in America,” was “coercive rather than conciliatory.”

Altman and Brockman aren’t exactly popular (well, Brockman isn’t really known to most of the public), but Musk has a real uphill climb in trying to make them more hated than himself. A YouGov poll from earlier this year found that 56% of the general public held unfavorable views of Musk, compared to 34% who had positive associations with the oligarch. It’s not clear that spending much of last week testifying will help Musk’s image among those who are paying attention. He repeatedly lost his cool and revealed that at least some of his public bluster about his companies is little more than smoke and mirrors.

That’s not to say Altman is beloved in comparison to Musk, seeing as a Tech Oversight poll conducted last year found 50% of people have a negative view of OpenAI’s CEO. Altman also typically doesn’t do himself many favors when speaking publicly—it turns out most people don’t have fond feelings when a rich guy coldly says things like “I expect some really bad stuff to happen because of the technology” and then continues to develop the technology. But it seems like the best case here for Musk is that he wins a very South Park-ian Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich-style popularity contest.



Source link