“There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that, at the present stage of technological development, AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. At best, the tool could be utilised for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research and nothing more,” Justice Prathiba M Singh at the Delhi High Court said in the court case filed by luxury shoemaker Christian Louboutin SAS against Shutiq, a partnership firm involved in the manufacture and sale of shoes. Some context please: Christian Louboutin filed an appeal against Shutiq in the Delhi High Court, claiming that Shutiq was producing knock-offs of its red-soled shoes and spiked shoe style. To show that it was indeed well known for producing these distinctive shoes, Christian Louboutin’s legal counsel submitted responses by the generative AI chatbot, ChatGPT that established the same. The judge noted that “The response of a Large Language Model (LLM) based chatbots such as ChatGPT, which is sought to be relied upon by ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff [Christian Louboutin], depends upon a host of factors, including the nature and structure of query put by the user, the training data, etc.” She mentioned that there are possibilities that the chatbot could produce incorrect responses, fictional case laws, and imaginative data and that the accuracy of AI chatbots is still a grey area. Why it matters: Just like Justice Prathiba mentioned, there is a very real possibility that AI tools can create fictitious results. Notably, this actually…
