2 ms·
You're right in the sense there is a contradiction because this article is garbage quality. You can find the reuters article here: https://www.reuters.com/lega
by altmanaltman 2mo ago
You're right in the sense there is a contradiction because this article is garbage quality.
You can find the reuters article here: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/connecticut-judge-says-plaintiff-hid-messages-ai-court-filings-2026-08-13/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/connecticut-judge-s... (notice how there is no quote about the machine produced thing in the article, because the judge didn't actually say this).
The quote is from this order: https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=33274425 https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInqu... where the context of "machine produced" is fully different from the context in this article and actually goes into detail.
But this garbage article lumps it together as if the judge is commenting on this particular thing.
So you actually have good reading comprehension and noticed a flaw in the article.
This is the full quote from the order that arcs used dishonestly:
> Because the tactic is now everywhere, it is unsurprising that a litigant would think to
import it into a court filing. *But because the tactic is now everywhere, it was
exposed, in each of those settings, the moment a human being actually looked at
what the machine produced.* The remedy in evèry case was human review. What
obviously makes the conduct improper in a court setting is that it attempts to make
a decision-making process turn on something other than the honest, visible content
of the filing.
*The Connecticut Judicial Branch does not utilize an artificial-intelligence system to
review or decide filings, although a number of court systems elsewhere do so.* The
undersigned denied Docket Entry #177.00 on its merits working off a printed version
of the motion, so the hidden instruction had no impact on a ruling. The wrong lies in
the attempt, the deliberate planting of a concealed directive intended to mislead
whatever artificial-intelligence tool ANY reader of the filing might use. The Court
does not find the plaintiff credible that he only added the prompt to "audit"the
Court's use of artificial-intelligence systems. He did so attempting to achieve a
result he did not achieve when humans, knowledgeable in the Practice Book and
the law, read his pleadings.
In the context, "these settings" does not refer to this case but examples of where AI generated content was used and caught.
- rrook 2mo agoDoes that reading intonate that had the plaintiff chosen a more benign injection, only to prove that an LLM was involved, rather than to alter the outcome, the judge would have looked at the situation differently?
- altmanaltman 2mo agoI think you should read the source material in full. But there was no AI involved in the process, it was read on printed paper by a human being who saw the prompt and was like "lol I am not AI". The order talks about how many courts do use AI systems but even then the precedent on prompt injection is that its seen as dishonest and the automated systems (in a different case in a different country, talked about in this as a reference) also caught the prompt injection attempt. In all cases, it is not seen as okay to do.
- throwthrowuknow 2mo agoNo, it doesn’t intimate that the judge would forgive benign or joke attempts at prompt injection to “expose” the use of AI, the article specifically mentions that the judge sanctioned them as a result of them continuing to add hidden text that only contained assinine comments after the initial attack. RTFA
- rrook 2mo agoI did RTFA, maybe YOU need to read my question again. I specifically asked about the outcome if the plaintiff didn't do all that petty stuff.