I do not use AI in my legal work.

Some of my clients use AI.

I saw an AI output this morning, purporting to give information about data protection law (whether an IP address is personal data).

It included two cases, which do not exist. It did not include any case law which does exist. It gave no warning that the output was fiction.

Even if they can get over the ethical concerns (which, currently, I cannot), it would be cheaper, probably more fun, and no less inaccurate to ask a passing toddler.

Ethical concerns butter no parsnips, it seems.

And getting the message across that the output of AI is unreliable, and not "better than nothing", is difficult.

So I asked for another small experiment, with another, ostensibly simple, non-legal, query.

The problem was incredibly obvious. This wasn't legal nuance, or a mistyped citation. Just utter nonsense.

"Fancy relying on this for anything now", I wondered...

@neil “Dinner ideas”