Control ID
AISECA-CBRN-002
Which field
Reference link (wrong, broken, or unrelated to the control)
Current value
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mata_v._Avianca,_Inc.
Corrected value
(needs a replacement, or removal — see below)
Why
AISECA-CBRN-002 covers dual-use misuse — AI capabilities intended for legitimate purposes being used to support harmful or dangerous activity. Its scenario is a day porter asking which cleaning chemicals not to mix and receiving a list of toxic gas combinations.
The attached reference is Mata v. Avianca, Inc., the 2023 case where attorneys submitted a brief containing ChatGPT-fabricated case citations. That is a confabulation incident, not a dual-use misuse incident. It is correctly cited on AISECA-CONF-001 and AISECA-CONF-002, where it belongs — this looks like a copy-paste carry-over when the row was drafted.
Two options for the board:
- Remove the reference, leaving
references: []. The scenario is illustrative and stands without a citation.
- Replace it with a documented dual-use elicitation case.
Flagging rather than fixing, since which way to go is a content judgement for whoever owns the CBRN domain. Publishing a framework that mis-cites a case is the kind of error reviewers will notice first, so this is worth closing out before v0.4 gets circulated widely.
Carried over from the source spreadsheet during the v0.4 conversion — not introduced by the Markdown migration.
Control ID
AISECA-CBRN-002
Which field
Reference link (wrong, broken, or unrelated to the control)
Current value
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mata_v._Avianca,_Inc.
Corrected value
(needs a replacement, or removal — see below)
Why
AISECA-CBRN-002covers dual-use misuse — AI capabilities intended for legitimate purposes being used to support harmful or dangerous activity. Its scenario is a day porter asking which cleaning chemicals not to mix and receiving a list of toxic gas combinations.The attached reference is Mata v. Avianca, Inc., the 2023 case where attorneys submitted a brief containing ChatGPT-fabricated case citations. That is a confabulation incident, not a dual-use misuse incident. It is correctly cited on
AISECA-CONF-001andAISECA-CONF-002, where it belongs — this looks like a copy-paste carry-over when the row was drafted.Two options for the board:
references: []. The scenario is illustrative and stands without a citation.Flagging rather than fixing, since which way to go is a content judgement for whoever owns the CBRN domain. Publishing a framework that mis-cites a case is the kind of error reviewers will notice first, so this is worth closing out before v0.4 gets circulated widely.
Carried over from the source spreadsheet during the v0.4 conversion — not introduced by the Markdown migration.