[Editor’s Note: EDRM is proud to publish Ralph Losey’s advocacy and analysis. The opinions and positions are Ralph Losey’s copyrighted work.]
I unearthed important new case law this week that has never been seen before or discussed. This article gives an exclusive report of three appellate court opinions that discuss artificial intelligence and hallucinations. This is a key issue of our times.
The hallucinations in question are not, mind you, by an AI, although AIs play a part in the hallucinations. The hallucinations are by the plaintiffs themselves, including, just for instance, allegations of AI robot zombies and vast CIA conspiracies. Did you know Charles Barkley was an agent using mind control to turn humans into artificial intelligence? The pro se plaintiff wanted $35 Million in damages for that claim!
You may well wonder, but I assure you these appellate court opinions are all quite real.
Aljindi v. United States
I’ll start with a my favorite, the case of the PhD who invented AI, or claims to, Dr. Ahmad Aljindi. Aljindi v. United States, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 8069 *; 2023 WL 2778689 (Fed. Cir., 4/5/23); Aljindi v. United States, 2022 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2586 (Fed. Cl., Nov. 28, 2022). In his latest pro se suit, this time against the U.S. government for copyright infringement, Aljindi claims that he not only invented Artificial Intelligence, but also Information Security and Legacy Information Systems. Ahmad Aljindi, who has a history of pro se litigation, got a PhD in 2015 in Business Administration from an online school, NorthCentral University. His PhD dissertation must have been awe inspiring.
Did he really invent all these things, or is he hallucinating? Hard to say, isn’t it. Better take this one all the way up to the Appeals Court. I am surprised the U.S. Supreme Court did not weigh in too.
The history of this case also seems like a hallucination. This suit, as first pled, “alleged various claims, including employment discrimination; intellectual property theft; ‘negligence and tort,‘” Aljindi v. United States, No. 2022-1117, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 12530, 2022 WL 1464476, at *1 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2022). Aljindi’s pro se complaint included allegations of “ongoing judicial corruption, abuse, and torture in addition to the Government’s abuse and torture.” The usual thing.
The law suit was dismissed by the District Court. Then the good doctor appealed. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal of course, but, and here is the funny part, the dismissal was only affirmed in part. That’s right, the appeals court remanded the case back to the trial judge, who must have been thrilled, since it is well known that they love to abuse and torture. Just ask any attorney. In ordering the remand the appellate court, no doubt with substantial help from its law clerks, explained it actions:
But we vacated-in-part the trial court’s dismissal because Dr. Aljindi’s complaint “mentioned copyrights law violations in the relief section,” which could “be liberally construed as a copyright infringement claim over which the Court of Federal Claims would have jurisdiction.” 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 12530, [WL] at *3 (cleaned up). Accordingly, we remanded for the trial court “to consider the Government’s position that Dr. Aljindi’s complaint fails to state a claim for copyright infringement.” Id.
Aljindi v. U.S., 2023 U.S. App.LEXIS 8069 *2 (4/5/23)
Apparently some appellate law clerks wanted to read more of Aljindi’s amazing claims and talked their judges into a partial remand, out of an abundance of caution, of course. They were not disappointed. Aljindi on remand now claimed to have invented AI, Information Security and Legacy Information Systems, cause, why not? Al Gore did invent the Internet, after all.
These “unusual” claims were made by Dr. Aljindi to try to support his pleading for copyright violation. Surprisingly, that tactic did not work. The copyright claims were dismissed by the trial judge because duh, you cannot copyright ideas, even hallucinatory ones. Aljindi, of course, appealed again, much to the appellate clerks’ delight. I can almost see them pump fisting and saying, yes! Plan well done.
The Court of Federal Claims took time, again, to write a per curiam affirmed opinion. All part, I suppose, of what Aljindi called “ongoing judicial corruption, abuse, and torture.” Here are some select quotes, again, you be the judge, hallucinations or not? (citations to the record omitted)
Dr. Aljindi argued on appeal that the “Government used [his] property in ALL formal AI Strategies published by the federal government . . . as [he had] discovered this entire scientific field in its entirety.”
Dr. Aljindi clarifies in his briefing, however, that his copyright claim is not founded on any alleged infringement of the copyrightable aspects of his dissertation; rather, he explains that “[t]he scientific intellectual property” at issue is “the discovery of the entire Information Security, AI, and LIS scientific field in its entirety and establishing this scientific field from scratch.” Dr. Aljindi arguing that “[e]verything is based on [his] scientific research and [his] own property“) … . Dr. Aljindi does not identify any specific expression of these ideas and concepts that the government allegedly copied; instead, he repeatedly contends generally that “everything built on top of [his] property is [his] property.”
“[H]ow did these federal agencies . . . know about the relationship between AI, Information Security, and LIS without reading and taking my property and building on its formal scientific findings!“
Aljindi v. U.S., 2023 U.S. App.LEXIS 8069 *2, *3 (4/5/23)
How indeed?
I can imagine Dr. Aljindi thinking to himself, how else could they have possibly known? It’s mine, all mine, I say, stolen by the evil feds. I will sue you all!
Yes, I swear, this is a real opinion, not an delusion. So are the next two, which, in some ways, are even better.
Emrit v. Barkley
This is another pro se case, they are the best for hallucinations, where the Third Circuit bothered to write a per curiam opinion on AI and hallucinations. Once again, I suspect the judges’ clerks talked them into it. Emrit v. Barkley, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 11188 *; 2023 WL 3300970 (3rd Cir., 5/8/23). The plaintiff here is infamous, having filed over 500 pro se lawsuit across the country. This one is against former NBA basketball player, Charles Barkley, and the Subway fast-food chain. It involves both AI and the CIA. Of course, the CIA has long been known to be using AI for nefarious ends. What we did not know, until this law suit enlightened us, is how closely involved Barkey and Subway were involved. Pro se plaintiff to the rescue!
Emrit claims in his Appeal Brief that the “CIA utilizes advertisements of Charles Barkley, Subway, Fan Duel, and sporting goods to annoy or harass” [*2] him. Id. at 5. Emrit requested $45 million in damages. Id. at 9.” The trial judge dismissed the original pleading as frivolous. Can you imagine? Still, Emrit appealed to the Third Circuit and tried again.
Emrit argued in his appeal that the Barkley Subway and other “advertisements provided a way for technology companies to ‘engage in a form of mind control to turn humans into artificial intelligence.’” Yup, Barkley and Subway are part of a secret CIA mission to turn humans into Artificial Intelligence. Apparently, all the big tech companies are in on it too. Maybe they have already been turned into AI. It’s not clear from the pleadings. What is clear is the allegation that the CIA is able to turn humans into AI by mind control using television and advertisements, especially ones with Charles Barkley in them. Who can resist the trance inducing eyes of Charles Barkley?
Those are not the kind of allegations that appellate court law clerks, usually fresh out of law school, read every day. Usually it is pretty boring stuff. One company suing another, blah, blah. I have no doubt the Clerks of the Third Circuit were happy to read this nonsense and eagerly passed the Barkley briefs around.
Of course, the third Circuit affirmed the lower court dismissal without even a partial remand, “because Emrit’s complaint is frivolous.” Really? But what about copyright? I guess these clerks were not as persuasive as the ones in Aljindi v. United States. Still, they provided the explanations of the Barkley AI hallucinations in the per curiam opinion quoted above, and we are all better for that.
I have a suspicion that we have not seen the last of this particular hallucination. We may see it in a movie some day. Turning people into plain old zombies is getting kind of old. Robot-Artificial Intelligence zombies are much better. Plus, it is well known, that anything with AI in it these days sells, especially if they are crazy AIs. No doubt a copyright suit or two will eventually come out of all of this this as well.
Mateen v. FNU LNU
Now it’s the Fifth Circuit clerk’s time to have fun and write a per curiam affirmance opinion on a different AI hallucination. Mateen v. FNU LNU, 857 Fed. Appx. 209 (5th Cir. 2021). If you are at all squimish, you might not want to read on. By the way, the mysterious defendant in this case, FNU LNU, is an acronym commonly used in the justice system for when the identity of the person or persons charged or sued remains a mystery. In that case, they are often listed in court records as “Fnu Lnu,” shorthand for “First name unknown, Last name unknown.”
This one involves a pro se prisoner, Shazizz Mateen, aka Reginald Bowers, with a very serious criminal record. As a prisoner he sued in federal court in Texas unknown people in an unknown ambulance company and unknown people in an unknown hospital. Shazizz alleged that these unknown persons were all part of a “a vast conspiracy pursuant to which, inter alia, he was lobotomized and had an artificial-intelligence chip inserted into his brain that turned him into an android slave.” The appeal case was heard by Judge Jolly. I kid you not.
It is bad enough to be in prison, but to also have an AI chip put in your brain, that’s tough. Then to have an AI chip turn you into an android slave? Well, it does not get any worse than that. Maybe he deserves it, who knows. Still, his allegations were bizarre enough that most law clerks would want to write an opinion about it for their judge. The law clerks here almost didn’t get their way. The appeals court panel, led by Judge Jolly, agreed to allow a per curiam affirmed opinion, but only if it was technically an “unpublished” opinion with no precedent value. That’s why it can only be found online as part of the Federal Appendix.
So apparently the law clerk’s got their way and the case was published, but it was unpublished at the same time. Sounds like a zombie opinion to me. Another sign that an AI chip in prisoners’ brains zombie film will likely be coming soon too.
Conclusion
Humans are just as likely to be wrong and make things up as AIs are, maybe even more likely to do so, especially when they play lawyer. So do not be scared away from using AI tools like ChatGPT just because they sometime make mistakes and make things up, i.e. hallucinate. So do humans, even lawyers – just read the news. That is why lawyers still have job security to double check and quality control for errors and hallucinations.
By the way, no AI was used in the research for this article, nor for any of the writing. From my experience, GPTs are not that good at writing humor and do not understand the subtle nuances of satire. Still, AI is pretty good at accurate summaries, so I asked ChatGPT-4 to summarize this article. Here are its words.
Summary: The blog discusses three appellate court opinions centered on artificial intelligence (AI) and hallucinations. The discussed hallucinations are by the plaintiffs, not by AI, including outlandish claims like AI robot zombies and conspiracy theories involving Charles Barkley using mind control to turn humans into AI, with a demand for $35 million in damages.
- Aljindi v. United States:
- Dr. Ahmad Aljindi, claiming to have invented AI, Information Security, and Legacy Information Systems, filed a pro se suit against the U.S. government for copyright infringement.
- The trial court dismissed his claims, but the appellate court remanded for further consideration on the copyright infringement claim.
- On remand, Aljindi continued his astounding claims, but the trial judge again dismissed them, resulting in another appeal.
- Emrit v. Barkley:
- Pro se plaintiff filed a case against Charles Barkley and Subway, alleging a conspiracy with the CIA using advertisements for mind control and turning humans into AI.
- The plaintiff sought $45 million in damages.
- The case was dismissed as frivolous by the trial judge and affirmed by the Third Circuit, highlighting the wild accusations of mind control and AI transformation.
- Mateen v. FNU LNU:
- A pro se prisoner alleged that unknown persons inserted an AI chip into his brain, turning him into an android slave as part of a vast conspiracy.
- The appeals court allowed a per curiam affirmed opinion but noted it as unpublished with no precedent value.
The blog concludes by noting that humans, like AI, make mistakes and hallucinate, and while AI tools like ChatGPT might sometimes err, human oversight can help manage these issues, offering a degree of job security for legal professionals.
Chat GPT-4.0 summarizing this article
It is a decent, albeit dry summary. The summary does not seem to grasp the satirical and inside baseball humor of this article, well, at least attempts at humor. That confirms my point about AI’s not being ready for prime time comedy. Still, to be fair, I asked ChatGPT-4 to prepare a joke based on this article. Here is what it came up with. You be the judge of its quality.
Why did the man sue Charles Barkley and the CIA after eating a sandwich?
Because he believed the “sub-way” was leading him on a path to becoming an artificially intelligent robot, and he wanted his “byte” of the $45 million in damages for extra “processing” power! 🥪🤖
ChatGPT-4.0
Ralph Losey Copyright 2023 – All Rights Reserved –. Published on edrm.net with permission
Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM GAI and LLM Policy.
