ChatGPT responses cannot be used as evidence. The court ruled

The lawsuit was triggered by a fine of CZK 290 000 imposed by the Czech Environmental Inspectorate for the unauthorised use of forest land by Mr J.V. for purposes other than the fulfilment of forest functions, thereby violating the Act on the Czech Environmental Inspectorate and its competence in forest protection. According to the information from the court proceedings, Mr J.V. had covered the ravine on his own forest land with material from excavations. The man disagreed with the fine imposed and filed a lawsuit against it with the Municipal Court in Prague. He pointed out that he was a pensioner with an annual income of two hundred thousand and that the fine was liquidating for him. According to him, the degree of environmental damage was not established during the inspection and therefore this aspect could not be applied at all. In setting the fine, the applicant submits that the administrative authorities failed to take into account the specific circumstances, motivation and individual aspects of the case.

The Ministry of the Environment agreed with the findings and legal assessment of the Czech Environmental Inspectorate. It stated that the amount of the fine was appropriate, as the forest had not been damaged but endangered. It also pointed out that Mr J.V. had not documented his assets in the infringement proceedings, but a mere glance at the land register showed that the value of his assets significantly and many times exceeded the amount of the fine. Moreover, according to the administrative authority , the gully has impaired the water passage in the forest, the ability to retain water and the most valuable layer of soil has been destroyed by filling it in.

Although Mr J.V. did not deny that he had the material in question transported onto the forest land, he denied that he had adversely affected the water regime of the site and that the consequence could be a water deficit in the soil or, on the contrary, its waterlogging. According to him, this allegation is mere speculation. The applicant also pointed out that the disproportionality of the fine was also apparent from the market value of the land in question, which was only around CZK 50 000. Mr J.V. supported his allegations with, inter alia, photographs and orthophotos. One of the pieces of evidence intended to support his claims was also ChatGPT’s reply to his enquiry about clay mining in Krňany and its surroundings.

The court found that the applicant had committed an offence by illegally using forest land for purposes other than to fulfil forest functions. Such conduct can be committed not only by damaging the environment but also by endangering it, where the damage has not yet occurred but conditions have been created under which it is highly likely to happen. This distinction is crucial in terms of the necessary proof.

The court subsequently dismissed Mr J.V.’s claim. In doing so, it dealt substantively with his objections to the threat to the state of the forest. In doing so, it upheld the view of the contested administrative authorities, which had described in detail what the threat to the environment consisted of. Among other things, they emphasised that the most valuable layer of soil is the top organic layer, in which plant and animal remains are continuously deposited. Without these organisms, the soil would not be soil, but merely a dead substrate that could not perform important functions in the ecosystem. However, this layer of soil has been destroyed by backfilling with excavated material of different physical and chemical properties.

Of more interest from the perspective of current law, however, was the point at which the court denied the motion to take evidence in the form of ChatGPT’s response. According to the court, “The response of ChatGPT, a communication interface of the GPT-x large language model that is intended for the general public, cannot contribute in any way to the determination of the facts. Indeed, it is a well-known fact that the version of this large language model currently available to the public is not a reliable source of information of any kind, since, in the absence of certain information, it provides fabricated information, often without any basis in reality or with references to specific but non-existent (fictional) primary sources.”

According to the Court, these cases cannot be easily distinguished, except for obvious logical or factual errors. Thus, the veracity of ChatGPT’s responses (as well as other communication interfaces of other major language models operating on the same principles) must be verified by other sources; in such a case, however, it is those other sources, and not ChatGPT’s response, that would be the means of proof.

Conclusion:

The decision is crucial in the context of the rapid development of artificial intelligence, as it highlights the issue of the use of AI in legal processes, particularly in the context of the verifiability and reliability of the information provided. The Court noted that while ChatGPT may be useful for generating motions or preliminary responses, its use as evidence in court proceedings is problematic as it cannot be clearly determined whether its output corresponds to true and relevant information necessary to decide the case.