ChatGPT 法律建议：一位 CEO 如何将工具转化为证据

Changhan Kim, without consulting his lawyers, turned to a chatbot for advice on how to avoid a $250 million earnout. Months later, a Delaware judge referenced this exchange, noting that Kim had followed 'most of ChatGPT's recommendations' and ordered his reinstatement with additional time to earn the bonus. This incident highlights the risks of relying on ChatGPT for legal advice, not due to potential hallucinations, but because executives may generate clear, timestamped evidence of bad-faith intentions. In the case of Fortis v. Krafton, the court treated AI-drafted strategies like any other corporate communication, using them to infer intent and pretext. Leaders need governance frameworks that assume AI's role rather than outright bans.