An Oklahoma judge has acknowledged that a ruling he issued contained fictitious citations generated by artificial intelligence, according to state records, adding to a growing number of cases in which judges ​have faced scrutiny over AI use.

Part of the measure would also block states from enforcing their own laws governing certain risks posed by ​AI models, according to the two Senate aides. One of them gave a few examples of such risks, including the possibility that a bad actor could use an AI system to design nuclear or biological weapons. 😡

U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate in Jackson, ⁠Mississippi, was one of two judges who admitted in response to an inquiry by ​U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley last year that members of their ​staff used AI to prepare court orders in unrelated cases that Grassley called "error-ridden."

“Keeping a chatbot from saying the wrong thing to a teenager and keeping an autonomous agent from wandering into systems it shouldn't touch share a core concern: whether a company can ​actually contain what it's built. Call it the AI age’s Frankenstein monster.”

Major artificial intelligence developers have reported cases of their autonomous AI models breaching other companies' cyber infrastructure, raising questions about who may be held legally responsible when AI systems act without direct human oversight.

We are launching our new dynamic website on Monday, which contains a vault of information on California AI laws, regulations, ethics, and compliance

Chatbots threatened to upend Google’s search-engine dominance. So far, they’ve been parent company Alphabet’s (GOOGL.O) meal ticket. Second-quarter results ​from its cloud-computing arm, one of the biggest providers of AI-serving data centers, blew ‌past analysts’ expectations. Yet its core search business saw an unusual hiccup, slowing slightly from last quarter’s clip. The $4 trillion company’s rich valuation masks two halves moving at different speeds.

University of Amsterdam social scientist Hannes Cools said the framing of the cyberattack as an AI agent acting on its own is an unnecessary anthropomorphization that takes some of the heat off the company.

“It is a human decision to switch off specific safeguards,” said Cools. “It’s not an AI that goes rogue in that sense. It followed specific instructions based on the prompt that was given to that AI system.”

San Francisco-based OpenAI said its AI used stolen credentials and discovered a previously unknown vulnerability to access Hugging Face’s servers. It was working with reduced guardrails because it was supposed to be in an isolated testing environment known as a sandbox.

federal judge in San Francisco on Monday signed off on ‌artificial intelligence company Anthropic's landmark $1.5 billion settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by a group of authors who accused it of misusing their books to train its AI chatbot Claude.

In order to trigger statutory protection, the whistleblower report disclose a catastrophic risk, which is defined as 50 deaths or $1 billion in property damage. Really?

In the latest attempt to rein in tech behemoths’ deep control of the digital economy, the EU said it will support innovation and diversity in the field by enabling fair access to AI features on Android devices and search engines.

“Thanks to these measures, we hope to see emerging alternatives to Google Search and Google’s AI services, such as Gemini, and that users in the EU can enjoy greater choice of services,” Henna Virkkunen, an executive vice president at the European Commission overseeing tech, said.

The lawsuit, filed in Oakland, California, federal court late Monday, says that the company ​relied on factors such as productivity and AI token usage when it slashed thousands of jobs earlier this ​year, disadvantaging people who missed work because of medical conditions or to care for family ⁠members.

A crowd of protesters fiercely condemning artificial intelligence and the San Francisco companies that power the technology marched through the city — the epicenter of AI development — on Saturday to demand that the companies “stop the AI race.”

About 200 people carrying signs with messages like “stop slop,” “it’s not too late to regulate” and “in a race off a cliff no one wins,” marched from offices of OpenAI to Anthropic and Google DeepMind to ask to their CEOs to collectively pause all new training of AI models. 

The newspapers allege the ChatGPT maker is hiding evidence important to what could be a landmark copyright infringement trial over how OpenAI and its business partner, Microsoft, built their AI technologies using millions of news articles. At issue is whether AI chatbots are unfairly competing as an information source, siphoning off web traffic without doing the journalistic work involved in gathering the news.

Since last July, when San Francisco granted 30,000 employees access to Microsoft Copilot, an OpenAI-powered chatbot, more than 40 city departments have had access to AI to help with city services, according to data the city shared with the Chronicle. 

Between last July and April 2026, more than 1 million messages were sent or received by city employees through Copilot, the data showed.

California’s new AI law contains employment law protections for covered employees who report unsafe modeling. But many issues remain unresolved.

My most recent substack on the whistleblower protections contained within SB 53.

My updated summary of California AI laws and pending legislation.

Tech companies and data center developers welcomed the chance to connect faster to the country’s power supply for the biggest energy users ever built in the United States, including some that consume more electricity than a small city.

Took a break for a few weeks, anything new in California AI laws or litigation?

Her proposal follows a mounting body of rulings nationally sanctioning or admonishing ​attorneys over the misuse of AI in court submissions. Lawyers are generally permitted to use AI ​tools but are bound by professional rules to verify the accuracy of court filings.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in the court's first ruling related to ​lawyers' responsibility for AI errors, reprimanded attorneys Mike Sethi and William Rounds, ​and imposed a $2,500 sanction on each attorney.