So, he's representing himself, has already pissed off the judge, and is going up against a healthcare-oriented law firm. Does his case stand a snowball's chance in hell?
[The judge] said he welcomed litigants’ use of AI in general and even used AI tools to help prepare the decision. But hiding a set of instructions is “evidence of its malicious purpose,” he wrote.
Of course you should challenge the court's use of "AI" if you think it has had adverse impacts on your case. You can also use "AI" yourself. But you cannot do so via preemptive malicious intent to covertly influence your court case.
You cannot, for example, submit a printed filing with temperature sensitive ink which alters the text when scanned on a flatbed scanner, and then expect to not by sanctioned because you claim you're auditing whether or not the court used optical character recognition.
So, he's representing himself, has already pissed off the judge, and is going up against a healthcare-oriented law firm. Does his case stand a snowball's chance in hell?
Why is this a problem?
If the courts are using ai we should know why and how.
There should be a human reviewing it.
The judge should be making their own decision that shouldn't be based on automated tools.
You cannot, for example, submit a printed filing with temperature sensitive ink which alters the text when scanned on a flatbed scanner, and then expect to not by sanctioned because you claim you're auditing whether or not the court used optical character recognition.