Not having read the article, but I feel this is a risky stand for the court to take. It makes sense that you should stop others from impeding your review system - however you implement it, yet "prompt injection" is hard to define. What is stopping the court from fining people for a "logical argument" in future filings?
But Brasil court doesn't work under precedents. So unless this becomes law, it doesn't change anything for future cases.
The higher court that handles appeals.
That’s the generic answer to “what is stopping the court from…” in a functional judicial system.
Seems pretty easy to me. Any injection attack is an attempt to exploit technical weakness by injecting commands into data streams.
Is the problem not they're using AI for review and court decisions that can easily get hacked? If I open ports that can get hacked or allow sql injections I'll lose my job straight away tomorrow, but apparently the justice system is immune from that?
For any reasonable definition of "prompt injection", that pretty clearly is one.