This is a research prototype. The data and analyses are preliminary and not yet validated — we'd welcome your .
An expert witness in a high-profile Houston explosion lawsuit used ChatGPT to write 85% to 90% of his expert report, using highly biased prompts to argue his client 3M was 0% at fault, which was exposed during discovery.
3M-retained expert Josh Autenrieth reportedly submitted an expert report substantially generated with ChatGPT after prompting it to show 3M was "0% at fault" for a 2020 Houston industrial explosion that killed three people and destroyed roughly 200 homes. Plaintiffs were thereby presented with purported expert evidence substantially drafted toward a requested conclusion by an AI system, prompting extensive discovery and trial scrutiny.
Domain classification, causal taxonomy, severity scores, and national security assessments were LLM-classified and may contain errors.
Users anthropomorphizing, trusting, or relying on AI systems, leading to emotional or material dependence and inappropriate relationships with or expectations of AI systems. Trust can be exploited by malicious actors (e.g., to harvest personal information or enable manipulation), or result in harm from inappropriate use of AI in critical situations (e.g., medical emergency). Overreliance on AI systems can compromise autonomy and weaken social ties.
Also classified as
The AI was prompted to generate misleading and biased expert testimony to falsely claim 3M was 0% responsible for the explosion.
The expert witness used the AI system to generate biased arguments to intentionally manipulate the court's perception of liability for his client's benefit.
The expert witness exhibited extreme overreliance on ChatGPT, using it to form 85% to 90% of his professional opinion in a critical legal and safety-related lawsuit.
Human
Due to a decision or action made by humans
Intentional
Due to an expected outcome from pursuing a goal
Post-deployment
Occurring after the AI model has been trained and deployed
The incident was caused by the human expert witness's intentional decision to use ChatGPT to generate a biased expert report to influence a lawsuit.
Added categories peak at 2: Minor (Epistemic Harm, Inferred)
An expert witness in a major civil lawsuit used ChatGPT to generate 85-90% of an expert report, prompting the AI with highly biased instructions to absolve his client of liability. While exposed during discovery and resolved via standard judicial processes, the incident highlights an evolved threat to judicial integrity through AI-generated biased testimony in court proceedings.
The report describes ChatGPT acting as a writing assistant, helping the expert witness draft, edit, and refine his report based on direct prompts and uploaded documents.
Limited Risk: The system used is ChatGPT, a general-purpose chatbot. Under the EU AI Act, chatbots are classified as limited risk and are subject to transparency obligations to ensure users know they are interacting with AI.
The AI system was used primarily as a writing assistant to draft, edit, and structure an expert witness report based on user prompts.
The report provides highly detailed, factual information about the incident, including specific quotes from the expert's prompts, details of the court proceedings, and the financial figures involved.
None
Technology
Generative AI Limitations
ChatGPT outputs structure and content that may lack rigorous expert validation.
Lack of Input Bias Filtering
AI model accepted highly biased prompts without correcting or flagging them.
Data Inputs
Biased Prompting
Prompts instructed ChatGPT to prove 3M was 0% responsible for the explosion.
Direct Upload of Court Records
Feeding hundreds of court records directly into AI to generate legal arguments.
Human Factors
Overreliance on AI Output
Expert relied on ChatGPT to write 85% to 90% of his technical expert report.
Lack of AI Privacy Awareness
Expert exposed sensitive prompts publicly through ChatGPT links.
Compromised Objectivity
Expert directed AI to create a biased defense instead of objective analysis.
Process and Methods
No Verification of AI Drafts
Failing to independently verify technical claims generated by ChatGPT.
Insecure Tool Usage
Conducting sensitive litigation work on public AI platforms.
Management
Lack of Vendor Oversight
3M failed to monitor Knighthawk Engineering's report preparation methods.
Inadequate Quality Assurance
No internal review detected that the report was largely machine-generated.
Regulatory Environment
Unclear Rules on AI in Court
Lack of clear regulations regarding AI use in expert witness testimonies.
AI system involved
Identified by automated extraction; can differ from the alleged developers above.
