Open usage of generative AI technologies has been transformative to the digital world. 2023 had been a year filled with new applications from ChatGPT, to Midjourney and digital art. This explosive adopting of the use of generative, free to use AI, has also given rise to the race to regulate by national and international bodies.
Along with the new AI digital world, has been the spawning of the AI lexicon. One of which has been “AI Hallucinations”. Rather than being a philosophical question in line with Philip K Dick’s book title “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep”, AI hallucinations are defined by IBM as where a large language model (like an AI chatbot) “perceives patterns or objects that are nonexistent or imperceptible to human observers, creating outputs that at nonsensical or altogether inaccurate.” Google Cloud defines it slightly differently, as “incorrect or misleading results that AI models generate”. Hallucinate also was chosen as the Cambridge dictionary’s word of the year, and given the additional definition of: “’When an artificial intelligence (= a computer system that has some of the qualities that the human brain has, such as the ability to produce language in a way that seems human) hallucinates, it produces false information.”
It is an emotive term to apply to what would previously be called a computer “glitch” or a “bug”, bringing into focus all the more that AI technology has become more mind-like in the eyes of the general public. This has raised its own traps for the unwary. Though it can be entertaining when AI generated art has additional fingers and toes, there are potentially dramatic outcomes when applied to hiring practices or driverless cars. Similarly, there is a learning curve as to what to believe, and how to use these new AI tools.
In an unfortunate moment of trust, Harber v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2023] UKFTT 01007 (TC) (“Harber”) demonstrated how AI usage can backfire when users proceed without thorough review of its outputs. In a tax tribunal case, Harber the appellant gave her arguments regarding a failure to notify HMRC about her liability for capital gains tax. The penalty of a fine was appealed on the basis that Harber had a reasonable excuse due to mental health or it being reasonable for her to have been ignorant of the law.