Yes, I know, if you ask it a question all it does is produce something that plausibly sounds like what someone might say in answer to that kind of question. It doesn't answer the question. That's a distinction that it is taking some people a while to understand as we as a society get to grips with a new technology.
I do understand why people instinctively want to treat it like a chattier version of Google search or a sort of oracle machine. But there's no excuse for a judge to do that, if indeed that was the root cause of these egregious errors, which is just speculation I suppose. Hopefully it can be a warning for others regardless.