Some Unacknowledged A.I. Comes Within the “I’ll know it when I see it” Principle

Generally, “it has become nearly impossible–even for computer scientists–to tell authentic from fake content.” M. Grossman and P. Grimm, “Judicial Approaches to Acknowledged and Unacknowledged AI-Generated Evidence,” 26 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 110 (2025).

But not always.  Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote in an obscenity case: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”  Jacobellis v. State of Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring)(emphasis added).

A court recently did the same with a GenAI Complaint.  Glowicki v. Does, 2026 WL 1864571 (E.D. Wisc. Jun. 29, 2026).  The court wrote that it “need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud,” and ordered an amendment.  I guess that is another way of saying that “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record.” (Mar. 21, 2025).

The pro se plaintiff sued the City of Milwaukee and a number of others. The court wrote:

The amended complaint has all the hallmarks of being prepared using Artificial Intelligence (AI). Rather than providing a short plain statement of his claim for relief, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the amended complaint begins with a lengthy “preliminary statement and nature of the action” that appears to be a software-generated effort to avoid scrutiny at screening [of an in forma pauperis request]. This extended preamble asserts at length, often using legal jargon, what the action is not, what the Constitution protects, what Defendants “will likely” do, Glowicki’s purported understanding of various case law and statutes, and why Glowicki believes the action should be brought…. The preliminary statement is then followed by a four-page single spaced section on jurisdiction and venue…. Glowicki then seeks to sue almost two hundred defendants in a “parties” section that runs another twelve pages…. It is not until page twenty-four that Glowicki begins his actual factual allegations, and, once begun, they continue for another forty pages! … They also include inexplicable references to numerous matters that do not appear relevant to the claims he later identifies…. With respect to his claims, Glowicki identifies twelve grounds for relief but does not make clear which claims apply to which defendants…. (stating that “where applicable” some counts apply to “joint-action defendants”).

Id. at *1 (emphasis in original). Applying the “short and plain statement of the claim” definition of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), the court wrote that length may make a complaint unintelligible.