A former kindergarten teacher in Concord, Massachusetts, is asking a state court to cancel the arbitration ruling that upheld her firing, because the arbitrator used AI chatbots to settle a question about AI and told neither side. Christine Apollos taught at Thoreau Elementary School for more than 20 years and was dismissed in 2025. She claims her principal, Justin Sparks, used AI to write the evaluation that recommended her dismissal, and says it cites sections of the teacher rating guide that do not exist. The district and Sparks say only an AI grammar checker was used and that the firing followed a series of weak reviews. During arbitration, Apollos ran the reports through GPTZero, a program that estimates whether a text was machine-written, and it rated several of them as likely written by AI.

In his August 27 decision, the arbitrator upheld the firing, found no age discrimination and gave “no weight” to the AI claim, though he called the errors in the evaluations “troubling.” To judge GPTZero, he asked two chatbots, OpenAI’s GPT-5.4 and Anthropic’s Claude Opus 5, to describe it, and their answers said it is not always accurate. Neither side was told about this research, so Apollos could not challenge it. Her lawsuit, filed September 28 in Suffolk County Superior Court, calls this misconduct and asks for a new hearing before a different arbitrator. The district has until January 26 to answer.

Microsoft researchers reported in the journal Science on October 22 that their diagnostic system solved 83.2% of 304 difficult medical cases, while general physicians working alone solved 36.1% with textbooks and online references and 22.3% without them. The cases came from teaching case reports in The New England Journal of Medicine. The system, called MAI-DxO, coordinates several AI programs that play different roles, like a panel of doctors. It never sees the whole file at once. It asks questions, orders tests and gets each answer from a separate program that releases information only when asked. On 325 emergency room cases taken from hospital records, it reached about 80% accuracy, against 47% for the physicians.

The authors list the limits of the comparison themselves. The doctors were generalists working alone, without specialists or hospital teams, and every case was a written file with no scans or tissue slides and no patient in the room. Most of the gain came from the underlying model, since OpenAI’s GPT-5 alone scored about 79%. Using standard U.S. prices, its most accurate setting spent $5,431 per case, above the $4,725 spent by physicians, while a cheaper setting reached 80.9% for $2,241. All the authors work for Microsoft. The next step is a study at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, where patients who agree will use the system during normal care and its conclusions will be compared with their doctors’.

On Thursday, a federal appeals court took a Mississippi case away from the judge who had been handling it, after concluding that his rulings were marred by errors produced with artificial intelligence. The case is about a 2025 state law that bans diversity, equity and inclusion programs in public schools and universities. Teachers, professors, students and the Mississippi Association of Educators sued, and in the summer of 2025 Judge Henry Wingate blocked the law. His first order named people who were not part of the lawsuit, pointed to statements that did not exist in the case file and misquoted the law itself. Wingate later said a law clerk had used Perplexity, a chatbot that searches the web and writes answers, as a “foundational drafting assistant,” and that a draft was filed before anyone in his office had checked it.

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals canceled the later order that kept the law on hold and sent the case to a different judge. Judge Jerry Smith, who wrote the decision, pointed to the AI mistakes and the errors of law in Wingate’s rulings. The state had argued that an invented case citation survived even in the corrected version. The appeals court did not decide whether the law itself is constitutional. That question now goes to a new judge, and while it is argued again, the ban is no longer blocked in Mississippi’s schools and colleges.