Body by Michael Pty Ltd and Industry Innovation and Science Australia

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 24 de enero de 2025, Administrative Review Tribunal (Australia) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en la herramienta de IA ChatGPT y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Applicant’s BBM SFIC contained citations to non-existent cases in paras 35–37, later withdrawn before hearing.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. IISA framed the test as requiring “new scientific or technical knowledge” and that the new knowledge be “based on principles of established science,” which the Tribunal corrected as not the statutory test.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. IISA asserted hypotheses must identify technical knowledge gaps with “causal relationships between technical variables…,” which the Tribunal said is not the statutory requirement.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. IISA stated that meeting observation and evaluation requires “analysis of numerical data using established statistical techniques,” which the Tribunal found is not required by the statute.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. IISA argued there is a legal requirement to keep documentation and contemporaneous records to satisfy s 355-25; Tribunal held no such statutory requirement exists (documentation may be expected but is not mandated).
• Citas falsas de doctrina. Applicant attributed a sentence to the ManUp study that does not appear in the article; Tribunal verified the quote was not in the paper.

Desenlace

Fake references withdrawn before the hearing. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/543/Industry_Innovation_and_Science_Australia_Australia_24_January_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.