ChatGPT: Difference between revisions
Connect comprehensive OpenAI incident overview and September 16 disclosure coverage |
Add verified Hancox AI-filing judgment and September 17 coverage |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
That report supplies a documented policy connection, but not proof that ChatGPT alone caused any particular law to be adopted. This profile covers the system and selected regulatory history; [[OpenAI]] covers the organization's own policy proposals and institutional role.<ref name="system-report" /> | That report supplies a documented policy connection, but not proof that ChatGPT alone caused any particular law to be adopted. This profile covers the system and selected regulatory history; [[OpenAI]] covers the organization's own policy proposals and institutional role.<ref name="system-report" /> | ||
== September 17, 2026: litigant responsibility == | |||
The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered a 300-page ChatGPT-generated argument in [[Hancox v Sutherland]]. It emphasized litigants’ own responsibility for checking accuracy and complying with procedural requirements; AI assistance is not generally prohibited.<ref name="hancox-judgment">[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6aabab820420ac660805f955/Mr_T_Hancox_v_Kenneth_Sutherland_and_Others__2026__EAT_139.pdf Hancox v Sutherland and Others [2026] EAT 139, September 17, 2026, cover, summary and paragraphs 1–3, 31–37, 39–40.]</ref> See [[AI Law Wiki News for September 17, 2026#UK tribunal requires litigants to check AI-generated submissions|September 17 digest coverage]]. | |||
== Related articles == | == Related articles == | ||