ChatGPT-like AI responses still in grey area, cannot become basis of court's decisions: Delhi HC | Mint – Mint
Generative AI technology like ChatGPT or Google Bard is making things simpler for millions of people. The growth of the AI space in recent months has alerted governments around the world about its potential misuse and at the current level of AI development even the judiciary seems to be a little skeptical of the AI technology. In a recent observation, a Delhi High Court judge said that responses from AI chatbots like ChatGPT cannot be the basis for deciding issues in courts.
While hearing a dispute between two shoemakers with one accusing the other of stealing its design, Justice Prathiba M Singh ruled that ChatGPT cannot be the substitute for human intelligence and cannot become the basis of adjudication of legal issues in court, Bar and Bench reported on Monday.
“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 human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. At best, the tool could be utilized for a preliminary understanding or preliminary research and nothing more,” Justice Singh said.
What was the case?
French footwear company Christian Louboutin alleged that a firm named ‘The Shoe Boutique – Shutiq’ is designing shoes identical to its red sole and spiked shoe style. The lawyer appearing from the side of Christian Louboutin contended that the reputation of the plaintiffs can be evaluated by the response of the AI chatbot ChatGPT.
When ChatGPT was asked “Is Christian Louboutin known for spiked men’s shoes?”, the chatbot answered YES.
However, the court noted that the other responses of ChatGPT were not aligned with the submissions of plaintiffs and when asked the question differently ChatGPT said that there are several brands with shoes designed in spikes and studs style, the Bar and Bench report added.
However, the court ruled that the defendants’ products were indeed copies of all essential features of Christian Louboutin. “The imitation is not of one or two designs but of a large number of designs as the chart above indicates. The acts of the Defendant are nothing more but an attempt to pass off its goods as the goods of the Plaintiffs,” the Court said.
“Exciting news! Mint is now on WhatsApp Channels 🚀 Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest financial insights!” Click here!
Download the Mint app and read premium stories
Log in to our website to save your bookmarks. It’ll just take a moment.
You are just one step away from creating your watchlist!
Oops! Looks like you have exceeded the limit to bookmark the image. Remove some to bookmark this image.
Your session has expired, please login again.
You are now subscribed to our newsletters. In case you can’t find any email from our side, please check the spam folder.
This is a subscriber only feature Subscribe Now to get daily updates on WhatsApp
