XPost: free.tampon.tim.walz, mn.politics, sac.politics
XPost: talk.politics.guns

A federal district judge issued a harsh rebuke and tossed out the
testimony of a Stanford misinformation expert who submitted a court
document, under penalty of perjury, containing misinformation in a
Minnesota election law case.

Jeff Hancock, who specializes in ôresearch on how people use deception
with technology,ö was retained by the office of Attorney General Keith
Ellison to submit expert testimony defending MinnesotaÆs new law banning election deepfakes, which was signed in 2023 and updated the following
year.

After Hancock filed written testimony last November, attorneys for
plaintiffs Rep. Mary Franson, R-Alexandria, and YouTuber Christopher Kohls noticed that the document contained several citations to academic articles
that do not exist.

The plaintiffs moved to have the testimony thrown out, and Hancock
subsequently filed a document admitting he used a version of ChatGPT to
draft the testimony, which included the non-existent citations, known
among AI researchers as ôAI hallucinations.ö The Attorney GeneralÆs Office argued Hancock should be allowed to file an amended declaration containing correct, non-hallucinated citations.

But in a ruling dated Jan. 10, U.S. District Judge Laura Provinzino
strongly disagreed.

HancockÆs citation of fake sources ôshatters his credibility with this
Court,ö Provinzino wrote. While acknowledging that artificial intelligence software may have valid uses in legal settings, she concluded that ôwhen attorneys and experts abdicate their independent judgment and critical
thinking skills in favor of ready-made, AI-generated answers, the quality
of our legal profession and the CourtÆs decisional process suffer.ö

The judge makes repeated note of the fact that Hancock submitted his
original document under penalty of perjury. ôSigning a declaration under penalty of perjury is not a mere formality,ö she wrote, but is rather an acknowledgement of the ôgravity of the undertakingö and a mechanism for ensuring ôtruthtelling and reliabilityö as well as trust.

ôThat trust was broken here,ö she added. ôGiven that the Hancock
DeclarationÆs errors undermine its competence and credibility, the Court
will exclude consideration of Professor HancockÆs expert testimony in
deciding PlaintiffsÆ preliminary-injunction motion.ö

Provinzino also reminded the Attorney GeneralÆs Office they have a responsibility to ôvalidate the truth and legal reasonableness of the
papers filed,ö and suggested that in the future they should ask witnesses whether or not they used AI to produce any of their material.

Hancock is billing the Attorney GeneralÆs office $600 an hour for his
services, according to a copy of the contract obtained by the Reformer
under a Data Practices Act request, with billing capped at $49,000.

The Attorney GeneralÆs Office did not provide information on how much had
been paid out under that contract so far, or whether the office knew in
advance that Hancock would be using AI to draft his declaration.

ôProfessor Hancock, a credentialed expert on the dangers of AI and misinformation, has fallen victim to the siren call of relying too heavily
on AI ù in a case that revolves around the dangers of AI, no less,ö
Provinzino wrote. ôThe irony.ö

https://minnesotareformer.com/2025/01/14/judge-rebukes-stanford- misinformation-expert-for-using-chatgpt-to-draft-testimony/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)