Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Artificial Intelligence

  • AI Use Casts Doubts on the Quality and Veracity of Communications Expert Witness’ Declaration

    AI Use Casts Doubts on the Quality and Veracity of Communications Expert Witness’ Declaration

    YouTuber and Minnesota state representative filed a lawsuit claiming that the state’s new law criminalizing the use of deepfakes to influence elections violates their First Amendment right to free speech.

    Jeff Hancock, the founding director of Stanford’s Social Media Lab, submitted his expert opinion earlier this month. His opinion included a reference to a study that purportedly found “even when individuals are informed about the existence of deepfakes, they may still struggle to distinguish between real and manipulated content.” But the Plaintiff’s attorney contended that the study Hancock cited—titled “The Influence of Deepfake Videos on Political Attitudes and Behavior” and published in the Journal of Information Technology & Politics—did not actually exist.

    Communications Expert Witness

    Jeff Hancock is the founding director of the Stanford Social Media Lab and is Harry and Norman Chandler Professor of Communication at Stanford University. Professor Hancock and his group work on understanding psychological and interpersonal processes in social media. The team specializes in using computational linguistics and experiments to understand how the words we use can reveal psychological and social dynamics, such as deception and trust, emotional dynamics, intimacy and relationships, and social support. 

    Want to know more about the challenges Jeff Hancock has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Plaintiff argued that the study was a “hallucination” generated by an AI
    large language model like ChatGPT. A part-fabricated declaration is unreliable.

    The citation bears the hallmarks of being an artificial intelligence (AI) “hallucination,” suggesting that at least the citation was generated by a large language model like ChatGPT. Basically, Plaintiffs did not know how this hallucination wound up in Hancock’s declaration, but it calls the entire document into question, especially when much of the commentary contains no methodology or analytic logic whatsoever.

    Moreover, Plaintiffs alleged that the title of the alleged article, and even a snippet of it, does not appear on anywhere on the internet as indexed by Google and Bing, the most commonly used search engines. Searching Google Scholar, a specialized search engine for academic papers and patent publications, reveals no articles matching the description of the citation authored by “Hwang” that includes the term “deepfake.”

    The existence of a fictional citation Hancock (or his assistants) didn’t even bother to click calls into question the quality and veracity of the entire declaration.

    Key Takeaway:

    A well-published academic from Stanford was accused of spreading AI-generated misinformation despite being retained to testify in favor of a law designed to keep AI-generated misinformation out of elections. The irony was not lost on anyone.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Kohls Et Al V. Ellison Et Al
    Docket Number: 0:24cv3754
    Court: United States District Court, Minnesota
  • Trust and Estate Expert Witness’ Copilot-Generated Damage Estimate Rejected

    Trust and Estate Expert Witness’ Copilot-Generated Damage Estimate Rejected

    Michael S. Weber (hereinafter the “Decedent”) died a resident of Saratoga County on December 7, 2003. He included rental property worth $485,000 in a trust for the deceased man’s son. The deceased man’s sister was responsible for executing the trust. The Court is supposed to assess if the executrix and trustee—the deceased man’s sister—breached her fiduciary duties by delaying the sale of the property while admittedly using it for personal vacations.

    The son had to prove that he suffered damages as a result of the aunt’s alleged misuse of the property. Charles Ranson was retained to to figure out how much would be owed to the son had the aunt sold the property in 2008 compared to the actual sale price in 2022. It was repeatedly pointed out that Ranson lacked relevant real estate experience.

    The Court not only questioned the credibility of Ranson’s testimony and opinions, but also called him out for relying on the Copilot chatbot to estimate damages.

    Trust and Estate Expert Witness 

    Since 2011, Charles Ranson has provided litigation consulting and trust expert witness services to Defense and Plaintiff counsel, focusing on trust and estate litigation disputes. Ranson has opined in written reports and testified in deposition and at trial on issues of breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the standard of care for corporate and individual trustees, based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Ranson has accepted case assignments involving claims of breach of duty of impartiality, trustee’s failure to account, trustee’s failure to diversify, trustee’s failure to administer trust based on the terms and purpose of the trust, and disputes between trustees and beneficiaries as to what constitutes reasonable compensation for a trustee under the circumstances.

    Get the full story on challenges to Charles Ranson’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Ranson relied on Microsoft Copilot, a large language model generative artificial intelligence chatbot, in cross-checking his calculations. Despite his reliance on artificial intelligence, Ranson could not recall what input or prompt he used to assist him with the Supplemental Damages Report. He also could not state what sources Copilot relied upon and could not explain any details about how Copilot works or how it arrives at a given output.

    Ranson was also unable to explain how Copilot works

    Ranson was unable to recall what prompts he used to assess the damages or what sources Copilot cited to arrive at its estimate. He was also unable to explain how Copilot works.

    The Court then decided to use Copilot to see if it could arrive at the same estimate that Ranson provided. The Court asked Copilot “Can you calculate the value of $250,000 invested in the Vanguard Balanced Index Fund from December 31, 2004 through January 31, 2021?”

    Copilot provided a different answer in three different attempts, and each answer was different from Ranson’s own Copilot-generated amount.

    Can Copilot generate evidence that can be relied upon in a court proceeding?

    While these resulting variations are not large, the fact there are variations at all calls into question the reliability and accuracy of Copilot to generate evidence to be relied upon in a court proceeding.

    Interestingly, when asked the following question: “are you accurate”, Copilot generated the following answer: “I aim to be accurate within the data I’ve been trained on and the information I can find for you. That said, my accuracy is only as good as my sources so for critical matters, it’s always wise to verify.

    When asked “are you reliable”, Copilot responded with: “you bet. When it comes to providing information and engaging in conversation, I do my best to be as reliable as possible. However, I’m also programmed to advise checking with experts for critical issues. Always good to have a second opinion!”

    Ranson was adamant that AI tools like Copilot were standard use in his industry

    Ranson was adamant in his testimony that the use of Copilot or other artificial intelligence tools, for drafting expert reports is generally accepted in the field of fiduciary services and represents the future of analysis of fiduciary decisions; however, he could not name any publications regarding its use or any other sources to confirm that it is a generally accepted methodology.

    Held

    The Court rejected Charles Ranson’s Copilot-generated damage estimate.

    Key Takeaway:

    The use of artificial intelligence is a rapidly growing reality across many industries. Major tech companies like Google and Microsoft are ramping up promotion of AI chatbots to users. Earlier this year, ChatGPT was in the news for hallucinating cases that did not exist. Lawyers are wary of using ChatGPT in their legal filings.

    In this case, the Court made a point not to blame the AI chatbot but the user for citing it.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Matter of Weber
    Docket Number: 1845-4/B
    Court: Surrogate’s Court of New York, Saratoga County
    Order Date: October 10, 2024
  • Washington Court Rules against Admitting AI-Enhanced Video as Evidence

    Washington Court Rules against Admitting AI-Enhanced Video as Evidence

    A Washington state superior court judge recently rejected the admission of video exhibits “enhanced by artificial intelligence” as evidence in a triple murder case.

    To begin with, the state of Washington charged Defendant Joshua Puloka with three counts of murder stemming from a 2021 shooting. The shooting was captured on a bystander’s smartphone and the unaltered 10-second-long source video of the shooting had been entered into evidence.

    The defense, however, also sought to admit an AI-enhanced version of the video which is when the Court heard testimony from defense witness Brian Racherbaeumer and State’s witness Grant Fredericks regarding proposed defense video exhibits enhanced by artificial intelligence.

    Washington Court Rules against Admitting AI-Enhanced Video as Evidence

    Video Expert Witnesses

    Brian Racherbaeumer is a self-identified videographer and filmmaker who started working with video in 1993. He was very candid and open about the fact that he is not – and has not claimed to be – a forensic video technician and has not been forensically trained.

    Want to know more about the challenges Brian Racherbaeumer has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Grant Fredericks is a contract instructor of video sciences at the FBI National Academy and is one of the most experienced video experts in North America. Moreover, Grant is a Certified Forensic Video Analyst, who has testified as an expert witness over 150 times in courts at all levels. He is recognized as a leading instructor in the science of Photographic/Video Comparison, Reverse Projection and Vehicle Speed Analysis.

    Discover more cases with Grant Fredericks as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Racherbaeumer contended that the source video was low resolution, had substantial motion blur, and contained fuzzy images with “blocky” edge patterns. To fix these problems, Racherbaeumer stated that he had added clarity to the source video though the use of an AI-video editing tool in the Topaz Labs AI program before processing the video using an Adobe program. Racherbaeumer stated that the Topaz Labs AI program used technology that “intelligently scaled up the video to increase resolution,” as well as added sharpness, definition, and smoother edges to objects in the video.

    However, the state challenged the proffered AI-enhanced video, asserting that it failed to meet the admissibility standard set forth in Frye v. United States – a standard requiring that evidence using novel scientific theories or principles must have achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. According to Fredericks, the accepted forensic analysis of the video was impossible because of the AI tools used by the defense. Fredericks provided a litany of issues with the AI-enhanced video:

    • the video added 16 times the number of pixels as existed in the original video, using an algorithm and enhancement method unknown and unreviewed by any forensic video expert,
    • AI process removed information that was in the original images and it added information that was not in the original images,
    • The proffered AI-enhanced video removed artifacts on individual images, and altered shapes and colors in the video. It removed the opportunity to forensically analyze which frames in the video utilized reference, predictive, and bi-directional images.

    Also, Fredericks testified that the Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence, whose members represented state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies engaged in forensic video examinations, had issued warnings regarding the use of AI-enhancement tools in the courtroom instead of approving the use of such AI-enhancement tools.

    Held

    The Court held that the Topaz Video AI enhancement tools, which use machine-learning algorithms, have not been peer-reviewed by the forensic video analysis community, are not reproducible by that community, and are not accepted generally in that community. Racherbaeumer himself was unable to say whether the Topaz Video AI he used, which had been commercially available for about three years, is currently utilized by the forensic video analysis community.

    Moreover, the Court found that AI-enhanced video failed to satisfy Washington Rule of Evidence (ER) 702, under which evidence may only be admissible if it is reliable and will assist the trier of fact, as well as ER 403, which states that evidence is not admissible if its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.

    Key Takeaway:

    In conclusion, the Court held that the Defendant had the burden to show that the method was accepted in the relevant community because using AI tools to enhance video introduced in a criminal trial was a novel technique. The Court, as a result, held that the defense had failed to meet its burden after it found that the relevant scientific community was the “forensic video analysis community.” 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: State of Washington v. Puloka
    Docket Number: 21-1-04851-2
    Court Name: Superior Court of Wasington for King County
    Order Date: March 29, 2024