Mata v. Avianca, Inc

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

El 22 de junio de 2023, S.D.N.Y. (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en la herramienta de IA ChatGPT y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Non-existent Eleventh Circuit opinion; Clerk confirmed no such case, docket/citation matched other matters, and the text contained gibberish analysis.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Non-existent Second Circuit decision; docket number and reporter citation belonged to unrelated cases.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Non-existent D.D.C. decision; docket and citations corresponded to different cases and even cited itself as precedent.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Non-existent Illinois appellate decision generated by ChatGPT and submitted as authority.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Non-existent Texas appellate decision generated by ChatGPT and submitted as authority.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Non-existent Georgia appellate decision generated by ChatGPT and submitted as authority.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Internal citation in the fake Varghese opinion to a non-existent Eleventh Circuit case.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Internal citation in the fake Varghese opinion to a non-existent Fifth Circuit case; reporter cite actually corresponds to a Fourth Circuit case.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Internal citation in the fake Varghese opinion to a non-existent Eleventh Circuit case at 92 F.3d 1074.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Internal citation in the fake Varghese opinion to a non-existent Eleventh Circuit case; citation corresponds to an unrelated case.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited an Eleventh Circuit Zicherman decision and citation that does not exist; real Zicherman is a Supreme Court case and unrelated Eleventh Circuit cite is Miccosukee Tribe.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Mis-cited a bankruptcy decision and reporter; the cited Bankruptcy Reporter citation is to a different case and Second Circuit BDC 56 did not address the stay.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Relied on a Seventh Circuit decision that addresses Rule 11 sanctions, not the bankruptcy stay.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Identified as a Second Circuit case and cited for the bankruptcy stay, but it is a Third Circuit decision that does not address the stay.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited for a bankruptcy-stay proposition, but the case addresses whether a trustee may recover certain payments to the IRS.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited for a bankruptcy-stay proposition, but the case concerned a stay pending state-court proceedings on state constitutional issues.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted language about the purpose of the Montreal Convention that does not appear in the decision.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited for a bankruptcy-stay proposition, but the case involved denial of a motion to compel arbitration.

Desenlace

Monetary Fine (Lawyers & Firm); Letters to Client/Judges. Sanción económica: 5000 USD. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.54.0_8.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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