The Delhi High Magistrate has affirmed that strained intelligence cannot replace human intelligence or the human element in a judicial process. This statement was made during an request filed by Christian Louboutin SAS, a French luxury shoemaker, versus Shutiq, a partnership firm engaged in shoe manufacturing and sales.
Use of AI Vestige in Legal Proceedings – Christian Louboutin vs. Shutiq Case
Christian Louboutin so-called that Shutiq was involved in producing unverified versions of their luxury shoe line, for which Christian Louboutin held a registered trademark and had established goodwill in various designs. To demonstrate that Christian Louboutin was indeed known for creating the specific diamond in question, vestige from ChatGPT was presented in court.
The magistrate emphasized that ChatGPT cannot serve as the foundation for resolving legal or factual matters in a courtroom. It noted that responses from AI chatbots like ChatGPT depend on multiple factors, including the user’s query’s nature and structure. The magistrate remoter pointed out that AI chatbots could produce incorrect responses, fictitious legal precedents, and imaginative data, highlighting that the verism and reliability of AI-generated information remain uncertain.
Why Generative AI Can’t Replace Humans in Court?
Generative AI like ChatGPT can’t replace humans in magistrate because:
AI aids legal research but can’t replace human judges, lawyers, and experts who ensure fairness, justice, and legal adherence.
Ultimately, without comparing the shoes in question, the magistrate ruled in favor of the French shoemaker. However, it cautioned that given the current state of AI chatbot technology, these tools should be utilized primarily for preliminary research and nothing vastitude that.
The post Arguments By ChatGPT Are Invalid In Court; Cases Can’t Be Judged Based On ChatGPT – Delhi High Court appeared first on Trak.in - Indian Business of Tech, Mobile & Startups.