AI technology has undoubtedly made significant advancements in recent years, but a recent case in the Delhi High Court has raised important questions about its limitations in the field of legal adjudication. The court declined to rely on responses generated by ChatGPT, a popular language model-based chatbot, cautioning against substituting human intelligence with artificial intelligence in the legal decision-making process.
In the suit filed by Christian Louboutin, a renowned French luxury company known for its distinctive “red sole” shoe design, the court highlighted the potential drawbacks of using AI-based chatbots like ChatGPT. It emphasized that the responses generated by such models depend on various factors, including the nature of the queries and the structure of the input. This opens up the possibility of incorrect responses, fictitious case laws, and fabricated data.
Justice Prathiba M Singh, delivering the judgment, emphasized that while AI can be useful for preliminary understanding and research, it cannot replace human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. The court acknowledged that AI-generated data’s accuracy and reliability still remain in the gray area.
The case also brought to light the limitations of ChatGPT as a basis for decision-making. The court noted that the responses provided by the chatbot were accompanied by a disclaimer suggesting users cross-check the information through other sources. This further reinforced the court’s stance that AI tools like ChatGPT cannot be the sole basis for adjudicating legal or factual issues in a court of law.
The ruling also took into account the statement of a partner from Shutiq, the defendant in the case, who asserted that their shoe designs were made on a “made to order” basis. They committed not to imitate or sell shoes that are imitative of the luxury brand’s designs in the future. The court specified that for an injunction to be granted, the imitative shoes should be a blatant and exact copy of the luxury brand’s designs, ruling out any “colourable or slavish imitation.”
This Delhi High Court case serves as a reminder that while AI technology continues to evolve and be utilized in various industries, including the legal field, its limitations and potential risks need to be carefully considered. The judgment highlights the crucial role of human intelligence, expertise, and ethical considerations in legal adjudication, emphasizing that AI should remain a tool to support and enhance human decision-making rather than replace it altogether.
FAQs:
1. What is ChatGPT?
ChatGPT is a language model-based chatbot developed by OpenAI. It uses AI technology to generate responses based on user queries and input.
2. Why did the Delhi High Court refuse to rely on ChatGPT responses in the case?
The court expressed concerns about the potential inaccuracies, fictional case laws, and imaginative data that could be generated by ChatGPT. It stressed that AI cannot replace human intelligence in the legal decision-making process.
3. Can AI be used in the legal adjudication process?
The court acknowledged that AI can be utilized for preliminary understanding and research, but it emphasized that AI should only be considered as a tool to support human decision-making and not as a substitute for human intelligence or the humane element in adjudication.
4. What were the conditions set by the court for granting an injunction in the case?
The court stated that for an injunction to be granted, the imitative shoes should be an exact and blatant copy of the luxury brand’s designs, ruling out any “colourable or slavish imitation.”