AI can't substitute human intelligence in adjudication: Delhi HC
human intelligence nor the humane element in the adjudicatory process, the Delhi High Court has held and said ChatGPT can't be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. Justice Prathiba M Singh stated that the accuracy and reliability of AI generated data is still in the grey area and at best, such a tool can be utilised for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research.
The court's observations came while dealing with a lawsuit by luxury brand Christian Louboutin against a partnership firm involved in the manufacture and sale of shoes allegedly in violation of its trademark.
The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that «Red Sole Shoe» was its registered trademark in India and placed before court responses by ChatGPT with respect to its «reputation».
«The said tool (ChatGPT) cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law.
The response of a Large Language Model (LLM) based chatbots such as ChatGPT, which is sought to be relied upon by the Counsel for the Plaintiff, depends upon a host of factors including the nature and structure of query put by the user, the training data, etc. Further, there are possibilities of incorrect responses, fictional case laws, imaginative data etc.
generated by AI chatbots,» said the court in a recent order.
«Accuracy and reliability of AI generated data is still in the grey area. 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.
