Lawyers in the US entrusted the court to neural networks and received a combined fine (4 photos)
Science fiction writers frightened us with the rise of machines and Terminators, but in harsh reality, the rebellion of artificial intelligence began where no one expected it – in American courtrooms. 
A historic precedent has been set in the US: two neural networks engaged in a full-fledged legal battle for the first time. Admittedly, they did so through the hands of their incredibly lazy lawyers, who decided to take their time and completely entrusted the drafting of documents to good old ChatGPT.
It all started with a trivial dispute over money. Lawyer Tom Withers sued the city of Aberdeen, claiming officials cheated him out of his fees for working on a solar panel project funding drive. The city initially ignored the case and suffered a technical defeat, but then came to its senses and decided to pursue the case in earnest. That's when the parties unleashed their neural networks, engaging in a veritable "lawyer ping-pong" before the astonished judge. 
5th Circuit Court of Appeals building in New Orleans
First, the city's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case summarily, generating the entire text using her firm's new in-house AI software. Withers' lawyer decided to press the issue and filed a counter-objection through the "First Drafts" AI system. And when the city finally attempted to challenge the amount of legal fees awarded, the neural network sprang into action again. Without hesitation, both programs generously peppered their arguments with references to past court decisions. The only problem was that the AI simply made up all these high-profile precedents, trial titles, and case numbers from beginning to end. Previously, such shameful lies had only caught one person, but this time, lies met with lies. 
All four lawyers turned out to be ardent fans of neural networks.
The face of District Judge Sharion Aycock at this point requires no introduction. She simply decided to double-check the materials in the official database and discovered that both sides were citing legal fiction. Instead of rigorous debate, the law enforcement officer spent half a day reading fairy tales concocted by silicon processors. The plaintiff's lawyer, backed into a corner, later claimed she was "shocked," as she'd been using the bot for six months and had no idea an AI could lie (hallucinate) so brazenly. The judge didn't buy this tale of girlish naivety. 
Judge Sharion Aycock
The justice system's patience snapped, and four criminals were immediately targeted. Two visiting female lawyers who generated this nonsense were punished, along with two local lawyers who acted as guarantors and simply stamped their signatures on documents without even reading them. The result: the neural network enthusiasts were shamefully thrown out of court and banned from the district for two years, while local lawyers were fined $1,000 each for their laziness.
