“The use of artificial intelligence is a rapidly growing reality in many industries,” Schopf wrote. “The mere fact that AI has played a role, which continues to expand in our daily lives, does not make results generated by AI admissible in court.”
Ultimately, Schopf found that there was no breach of fiduciary duty, eliminating the need for co-pilot Ranson’s damage testimony in the Bahamas property case. Schopf denied all of the son’s objections in full (as well as any future allegations) after he described Ransone’s abuse of the chatbot at length.
But in his order, the judge noted that Ransone appeared to have gotten everything wrong before engaging the chatbot.
“Whether or not he was appointed and/or qualified as a tort expert in areas other than fiduciary duties, his testimony shows that he did not conduct a complete analysis of the issue, used an incorrect time period for damages, and failed to consider the matter,” Schopf wrote. “Clear elements In his calculations, all of which contradict the weight and credibility of his opinion.”
Schopf noted that evidence showed that instead of the son losing money from his aunt’s management of the trust — which was supposedly supported by the chatbot output cited by Ranson — the sale of the property in 2022 resulted in “no attributable capital loss” and “in In fact, it made a total profit for the trust.”
Goldman noted that Ransone apparently spared little effort by employing the co-pilot in a way that appeared to damage his credibility in court.
“It was not difficult for the expert to pull the necessary data directly from the primary sources, so the process did not save much time — but this shortcut came at the expense of the expert’s credibility,” Goldman told Ars.
“Writer. Friendly troublemaker. Lifelong food junkie. Professional beer evangelist.”