Elon Musk, a figure no stranger to legal theatrics, finds himself at the center of another judicial controversy, this time possibly involving a hallucinating AI. In a recent twist in Musk's ongoing legal battle with PlainSite developer Aaron Greenspan, a court order has raised eyebrows over its reliance on a misinterpreted legal precedent, which may have been the result of AI involvement.

The heart of the dispute revolves around a motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which Musk and his co-defendants filed. Greenspan challenged the timeliness of the motion, but the court decided to entertain it anyway, citing the statute’s flexibility. However, the real confusion began with a handwritten note in the court order that referenced the case of *Jones v. Goodman*. The note suggested that an amended motion should be considered if it was in "substantial compliance" with the rule governing the original motion.

This interpretation directly contradicts the actual ruling of *Jones v. Goodman*, where the court explicitly rejected such an argument, stating that the relation-back doctrine does not apply to motions as it does to pleadings. This misquotation in the court order suggests that the initial motion can be amended and still be valid, a principle that the *Jones* court did not endorse.

The error was pointed out in Greenspan’s subsequent brief, which argued that the court’s reliance on this misinterpretation could indicate an AI’s involvement in drafting or reviewing the court order. AI technologies in legal research have been known to misinterpret texts, often by mistaking dicta for holding or mixing up argumentative positions for judicial decisions.

This incident highlights the ongoing challenges and risks associated with integrating AI into legal proceedings. As AI becomes more prevalent in the legal field, its potential to introduce errors through "hallucinations" — seeing legal precedent where none exists — could lead to significant judicial missteps. The case underscores the importance of meticulous verification of legal documents and AI outputs to prevent such mistakes from becoming embedded in legal precedents.

The consequences of this AI glitch, if uncorrected, could lead courts to adopt a new and erroneous standard for handling motions, potentially affecting future litigation. The legal community will be watching closely to see if this issue is resolved promptly, ensuring that artificial intelligence does not compromise the integrity of judicial decisions. Meanwhile, the legal battle between Musk and Greenspan continues, with the tech mogul’s legal adventures providing an ongoing saga of intrigue and caution in the age of AI-assisted jurisprudence.