From the motion to vacate the arbitrator's award in LaPaglia v. Valve Corp. (S.D. Cal.):
Arbitrator Saydah's opinion for Mr. LaPaglia's case has telltale signs of AI generation. The facts section cites facts that are both untrue and not presented at trial or present in the record. For example, Arbitrator Saydah's decision states, without source attribution, that "Other platforms such as Roblox innovate in other ways with more mature content like horror elements paying off." But Roblox is a children's game with no horror elements. No testimony or document in the record, or anything, suggested otherwise. This sort of hallucinating or mixing up of facts is frequent when using AI tools to write content. Arbitrator Saydah's seemingly random, uncited reference to Roblox's marketing strategy that is only tangentially related to the parties' dispute betrays the use of artificial intelligence to find "facts."
Similarly, the decision states that "Just last year Sony and Microsoft partnered together to explore cloud gaming and streaming solutions using Microsoft Cloud Azure" and that "There is also major competition from China with their own developers and platforms, and also competition from companies in the United States, in the race to capture the Chinese market for PC Games." Neither of these statements were in the record or otherwise evidenced or even argued, and neither fact findings bear any citations, again demonstrating Arbitrator Saydah relied on generative AI to determine the facts of the case and make decisions on market power and competition for him.
Prompted by these observations, Mr. LaPaglia's counsel's law clerk asked ChatGPT whether it believed the Roblox paragraph was written by a human or AI. ChatGPT stated that the paragraph's awkward phrasing, redundancy, incoherence, and overgeneralizations "suggest that the passage was generated by AI rather than written by a human."
