Yes. See the difference of using it as a tool (this), and as a lazy thing where you don't read what it does (the original)?

https://xcancel.com/sinailawfirm/status/1942996227173552385

https://x.com/sinailawfirm/status/1943018448063529230?s=46


https://x.com/sinailawfirm/status/1942996227173552385?s=46



Bell_curve

Question for ya: if you have the link to both the court document AND the relevant text that the judge applied, why would you ask autocorrect?

optimism

Rule 11 doesn’t directly apply to AI or AGI

 apply to the humans who use them in court filings.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the conduct of attorneys and unrepresented parties who submit documents to federal courts. It requires that filings:

Since AI or AGI systems aren’t legal persons and can’t sign pleadings, they aren’t directly subject to Rule 11. But if a lawyer or party uses AI to draft a filing—say, to generate case law or arguments—they’re still 

 for ensuring the content complies with Rule 11.

Recent cases have shown how this plays out:

If we ever reach a point where AGI can autonomously draft and file court documents, the legal system would need to evolve. For now, 

If you're thinking about how this intersects with broader legal ethics or policy, I’d be happy to dive deeper. Want to explore how courts are adapting to AI use more broadly?

Legal team fined close to 6M sats in sanctions for using an LLM

I consulted copilot...

The short answer is: **Rule 11 doesn’t directly apply to AI or AGI**, but it *does* apply to the humans who use them in court filings.

### ⚖️ Rule 11’s Scope
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the conduct of attorneys and unrepresented parties who submit documents to federal courts. It requires that filings:
- Are not for improper purposes (like harassment or delay)
- Are legally and factually grounded
- Are signed by a responsible human

Since AI or AGI systems aren’t legal persons and can’t sign pleadings, they aren’t directly subject to Rule 11. But if a lawyer or party uses AI to draft a filing—say, to generate case law or arguments—they’re still **personally responsible** for ensuring the content complies with Rule 11.

### 🤖 AI in the Crosshairs
Recent cases have shown how this plays out:
- In *Mata v. Avianca*, attorneys used ChatGPT to draft a brief that cited fictitious cases. The court sanctioned them under Rule 11 for failing to verify the content.
- This has led some judges to issue **standing orders** requiring disclosure of AI use in filings or even banning it outright.

### 🧠 What About AGI?
If we ever reach a point where AGI can autonomously draft and file court documents, the legal system would need to evolve. For now, **humans remain the accountable agents** under Rule 11.

If you're thinking about how this intersects with broader legal ethics or policy, I’d be happy to dive deeper. Want to explore how courts are adapting to AI use more broadly?


⚖️ Rule 11’s Scope⚖️ Rule 11’s Scope

🤖 AI in the Crosshairs🤖 AI in the Crosshairs

🧠 What About AGI?🧠 What About AGI?