AI Fraud
tl;dr: AI expert destroys his credibility with ChatGPT-generated hallucinations.
I’ve been using a hash tag on X for a while: #AIFraud (which originally referred to “Art Institute Fraud”), but now it refers to the fraud that is called Artificial Intelligence.
I’ve posted a number of stories about the ridiculous outputs that AI can produce:
This one really takes the cake, however.
In a law suit in Minnesota, the Attorney General of the state solicited an expert witness, “Professor of Communication at Stanford University and Director of the Stanford Social Media Lab”, Jeff Hancock.
Hancock purports to be an expert in misinformation, but unfortunately he seems to be rather lazy, at best.
He used ChatGPT to produce his testimony to the court, and didn’t bother to fact-check the citations.
“The irony. Professor Hancock, a credentialed expert on the dangers of AI and misinformation, has fallen victim to the siren call of relying too heavily on AI—in a case that revolves around the dangers of AI, no less.”
“…But, at the end of the day, even if the errors were an innocent mistake, and even if the propositions are substantively accurate, the fact remains that Professor Hancock submitted a declaration made under penalty of perjury with fake citations.”
That’s from the judge in the case, who was not impressed with Hancock’s “dog ate my homework” excuses.
“It is particularly troubling to the Court that Professor Hancock typically validates citations with a reference software when he writes academic articles but did not do so when submitting the Hancock Declaration as part of Minnesota's legal filing. One would expect that greater attention would be paid to a document submitted under penalty of perjury than academic articles. Indeed, the Court would expect greater diligence from attorneys, let alone an expert in AI misinformation at one of the country's most renowned academic institutions.”
The AG requested the opportunity to refile the document, but the court refused.
“Nevertheless, Plaintiffs argue that the Hancock Declaration should be excluded in its entirety and that the Court should not consider an amended declaration. The Court agrees.”
And the court effectively stripped him of his ‘expert’ status.
“To be sure, the Court does not believe that Professor Hancock intentionally cited to fake sources, and the Court commends Professor Hancock and Attorney General Ellison for promptly conceding and addressing the errors in the Hancock Declaration. But the Court cannot accept false statements—innocent or not—in an expert's declaration submitted under penalty of perjury. Accordingly, given that the Hancock Declaration's errors undermine its competence and credibility, the Court will exclude consideration of Professor Hancock's expert testimony in deciding Plaintiffs' preliminary-injunction motion.”
This is the appropriate way to deal with these faux experts: strip them of their status.
Sadly, I doubt he’ll receive any censure whatsoever for embarrassing Stanford, which is probably beyond embarrassment.
All quotes above from this article:
My worry is AI not being contestable. In the UK the "PM plans to 'unleash AI' across UK to boost growth". As my mother used to say, "Many a slip twixt cup and lip". Oops.