The growth of generative AI technology, exemplified by tools like ChatGPT and Google Bard, is simplifying tasks for millions of people. However, the rapid expansion of the AI space has also raised concerns about its potential misuse. Governments worldwide are becoming increasingly cautious, and even the judiciary is displaying skepticism toward AI chatbots and technology. In a recent development, a Delhi High Court judge has made an observation highlighting the limitations of AI technology in the legal realm.
During a hearing of a dispute between two shoemakers, where one accused the other of stealing its shoe design, Justice Prathiba M Singh ruled that responses from AI chatbots like ChatGPT cannot serve as a basis for deciding legal issues in courts. The judge emphasized that AI chatbots should not be seen as substitutes for human intelligence in the adjudicatory process. Justice Singh indicated that AI-generated data’s accuracy and reliability remain uncertain and that AI cannot replace the humane element in the legal decision-making process.
Justice Singh stated, “At best, the tool could be utilized for a preliminary understanding or preliminary research and nothing more.”
The case in question involved French footwear company Christian Louboutin accusing another firm named ‘The Shoe Boutique – Shutiq’ of copying its red sole and spiked shoe style. The plaintiff’s lawyer argued that the reputation of Christian Louboutin could be assessed by the response of the AI chatbot ChatGPT.
When asked, “Is Christian Louboutin known for spiked men’s shoes?”, ChatGPT responded with a “YES.”
However, the court noted that other responses from ChatGPT did not align with the plaintiffs’ submissions. Upon rephrasing the question, ChatGPT mentioned that there are several brands with shoes designed in spikes and studs style.
Despite this, the court concluded that the defendants’ products were indeed copies of Christian Louboutin’s essential features. The court ruled that the imitation extended to a significant number of designs, indicating an attempt to pass off the defendants’ goods as those of the plaintiffs.
In this instance, the Delhi High Court’s observation underscores the ongoing debate around the role of AI technology in critical decision-making processes and the importance of human judgment and interpretation in legal matters.
