"Justice cannot hide behind an algorithm": the debate over AI and prompt injection in courts
An opinion column addresses the use of artificial intelligence in judicial activity and the practice of "prompt injection": inserting hidden instructions into documents to alter the behavior of AI systems and gain procedural advantages. It cites sanctions in the United States, where a Connecticut judge sanctioned a litigant for invisible messages in court documents, and in Brazil, where the Supreme Federal Court and the Superior Court of Justice imposed fines and ordered disciplinary investigations against lawyers. The text argues that a judge cannot delegate responsibility to an algorithm.
In 45 seconds
- The column describes "prompt injection": hidden instructions in documents to steer AI tool responses in judicial proceedings.
- In the United States, a Connecticut judge sanctioned a litigant who embedded invisible messages in court documents.
- In Brazil, the Supreme Federal Court and the Superior Court of Justice imposed fines and ordered disciplinary investigations against lawyers in similar cases.
Read the full story at La Nación
IASummary generated by artificial intelligence from a story by La Nación. It may contain errors: the original source prevails.
Comments
Be respectful. Comments reported by several people are hidden until a moderator reviews them.
You do not need an account to read, only to comment. Sign in with a code sent to your email or with your Google account. We only show the name you choose, never your email.