Attorney-general demands explanation over AI court blunder
The fallout from Tasmania's parole board relying on case law that was "hallucinated" by AI in a high-profile case has sparked calls for resignations and the state's attorney-general demanding an explanation.
The attorney-general of Tasmania has requested an explanation from the state's parole board following a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated a parole condition imposed on convicted murderer Sue Neill-Fraser. The condition was deemed invalid because it denied Neill-Fraser procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable, and created uncertainty.
The court found that the parole board had relied on a document that cited fictitious case law, likely generated by AI. Justice Stephen Escourt ruled that the parole board's use of AI in this instance was problematic, as it resulted in inaccurate information being presented. Tasmanian Attorney-General Guy Barnett acknowledged the issue and promised to seek assurances from the parole board about its professional standards and how it intends to prevent such occurrences in the future.
Barrister Greg Barns SC called for an audit of the parole board's AI usage, asserting that there were no viable alternatives to resigning the board members. Legal advocates have expressed concern over the increasing prevalence of AI in legal proceedings, with some cases already involving AI-caused issues.
Written by urgent.news from ABC News AU's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
This story
This is one outlet's version. Read the fullest account.
