Plonit v. Sharia Court of Appeals

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

El 23 de febrero de 2025, High Court (Israel) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Five references in the petition were to court judgments that do not exist in legal databases, discovered after the Court ordered production of the full decisions.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Fourteen references mismatched the cited case details (case number/proceeding type/parties/content), indicating inaccurate citation of existing decisions.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. At least 24 references included a quote or asserted support that had no connection to the cited decision, i.e., quotes not actually supported by the case.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Some quoted passages were presented as if from Supreme Court decisions though initial review showed they were not from this Court’s judgments.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Certain arguments and quotations incorrectly described the law, presenting legislation or doctrine that does not match the applicable legal norms.

Desenlace

Petition Dismissed Outright; Warning re: Costs/Discipline.. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/235/Anonymous_v._Sharia_Court_Supreme_Court_of_Israel_January_23_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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