GoKawiil
Tech News
A commentary published in Nature argues that references invented by AI chatbots and inserted into academic manuscripts should be classified formally as research misconduct, rather than dismissed as a minor technical error. The authors call for journals, institutions and funders to establish explicit policies addressing these AI-generated 'hallucinated' citations.
Retraction Watch identified the nonsensical phrase 'vegetative electron microscopy' appearing repeatedly in recent academic papers. The term originated from a faulty optical character recognition scan of a 1959 paper that merged 'vegetative cell' from one text column with 'electron microscopy' from an adjacent column. The phrase has since propagated into databases and, apparently, into AI-generated or AI-assisted manuscripts submitted to journals.
Restaurant staff, including a New York server identified only as Madison, say diners increasingly cite ChatGPT to contradict staff on food allergens, wine selections and menu details. Some customers have insisted dishes don't contain allergens the kitchen confirms are present, or requested wine bottles that don't exist, trusting AI output over sommeliers and servers.
Regulators and courts have flagged a rising number of legal filings containing AI-generated fabrications, including invented citations and case law. The Ontario Law Society fined a lawyer $31,150 for using Grok to draft a factum full of fake legal principles, while Sullivan & Cromwell had to alert a New York bankruptcy court after a filing contained 42 fabricated AI citations. Canadian courts logged a sharp rise in such cases, from seven in 2024 to 86 in 2025 and 39 more in early 2026.
In a new essay, writer Cory Doctorow argues that people project intention and meaning onto AI systems like Anthropic's Claude much as religious believers see purpose in a sunset. He suggests this instinct to read agency into statistical text generators is a kind of collective delusion rather than evidence of genuine understanding inside the machine.
The New Mexico Supreme Court found veteran defense attorney Stephen Aarons in direct contempt after he filed an appellate brief containing invented testimony from nonexistent witnesses, generated using ChatGPT. Aarons admitted he never verified the AI-produced content before submitting it in the appeal of client Oscar Renee Sandoval's murder conviction, nor did he tell his client about the errors. The case has been referred to a disciplinary board for further review.
New Mexico's Supreme Court fined attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000 and held him in contempt after he submitted an appeal brief containing AI-invented witnesses and false police testimony about a shooter's appearance. Aarons admitted he used ChatGPT expecting it to produce a reliable trial summary but never checked its accuracy before filing it in his client's murder case.