Crypto Open Patent Alliance v. Wright (1)

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

El 6 de diciembre de 2024, High Court (Reino Unido) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en la herramienta de IA Unknown y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Authorities cited by Dr Wright for vulnerable-witness adjustments did not contain the passages he attributed to them; COPA flagged this and the Court did not engage further.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Many of Dr Wright’s cited authorities on vulnerable-witness adjustments were likely made-up references (AI “hallucinations”) rather than genuine sources.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Dr Wright misrepresented cited authorities as supporting vulnerable-witness adjustments when most had nothing to do with that topic.
• Tergiversación de pruebas o escritos. Allegation that the Court did not allow him to write notes during cross‑examination at the Identity Trial; transcript showed he did take notes.
• Fabricación de pruebas o escritos. Assertion that two bodyguards (allegedly costing up to £50k/day paid by nChain) ensured his safety at the Identity Trial; Court viewed this as likely pure invention.

Desenlace

No formal sanction; fabricated citations disregarded. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/301/Crypto_Open_Patent_Alliance_v._Wright_UK_High_Court_December_6_2024.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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