The Fair Work Commission has expressed dissatisfaction with the increasing misuse of generated AI for the management of cases by applicants.
In a full court decision in Sydney on Friday, deputy presidents Tony Slevin and Alexandra Grayson and chief justice Adam Walkaden lamented the use of AI by applicants to prepare applications, correspondence, submissions and witness statements without amendment.
“There is a problem with parties taking this approach; generative AI is just a tool; it cannot make the kinds of decisions needed to effectively litigate cases; human judgment is required,” they said.
Their comments were prompted by an issue involving an Uber driver who was deactivated from his employer’s digital labor platform in September last year after four counts of misconduct.
In February, the commission found he had not been unfairly disqualified, but in May he was refused leave to appeal.
The driver had now applied to amend, vary or set aside the appeal decision, requesting a reversal of the full bench.
The court said the AI ”generated pages of emails and other documents solely for the purpose of obscuring his claims.”
“(The applicant) was unrepresented and expected leniency from the commission. Normally, the commission would deal with unrepresented litigants. In (this) case, the commission made adjustments by reviewing his extensive material to identify and address his grievances,” the report said.
“The committee comments on the pitfalls of the use of AI in a number of recent decisions, including that case references have been fabricated, the materials submitted have been long and repetitive, and the party has relied on misguided or ununderstood materials,” the committee said.
“The unrestricted use of AI by States parties causes delays, wastes resources, and does not help the Commission get to the heart of the matter or effectively carry out its role in the way the law intends.”
The court said that within hours of the decision to reject the appeal, the applicants began emailing AI-drafted complaints to the commission, which were “generally incoherent.”
It said it contained “almost incomprehensible” instructions and “equally incoherent” supporting evidence.
“State parties should not respond to the European Commission in this way,” he warned.
The court denied the motion to dismiss and denied the motion to modify, vary, or reverse the appellate decision.
Read the decision here.
