
The information displayed in the AIM should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries.
A government-related report on Poland's national brand, overseen by Barbara Mróz-Gorgoń, was largely generated by AI and published with numerous errors and hallucinations. The incident led to public criticism over the misuse of public funds, misinformation, and reputational harm, highlighting risks of uncritical AI adoption in official documents.[AI generated]
Why's our monitor labelling this an incident or hazard?
The event involves an AI system generating a flawed report with numerous errors, leading to public criticism and reputational damage to a government ministry. The AI involvement is supported by analysis from AI detectors. The harm is realized and significant, affecting public trust and the ministry's image, which qualifies as harm to communities and possibly a breach of obligations under applicable law (transparency and accountability). Although the ministry denies commissioning the report, the report was publicly linked to the ministry and funded by public money, making the AI system's role pivotal in causing harm. Therefore, this event meets the criteria for an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.[AI generated]