According to the lawsuit being heard by a court, when Shi's mother died in April, he wanted to choose an auspicious date for her burial.

After consulting a feng shui expert, Shi, from Jiashan County in Zhejiang Province, and his family initially chose April 20.

However, Shi became concerned because it was the fourth day after his mother's death, and local custom considers even-numbered days in such circumstances unlucky. He therefore sought guidance from an AI chatbot, according to Sina.

The AI suggested April 19 and recommended burning paper horses and joss paper before the funeral, presenting the advice in a professional and knowledgeable manner, according to the report. Shi followed the advice but later received contradictory information when he asked about the burial time.

The AI recommended a burial time between 7 and 9 a.m. while also saying that April 19 was not an auspicious day.

By then, Shi had already informed relatives and made all the funeral arrangements. Unable to change the date, he proceeded as planned, according to HK01.

Shortly after the funeral, one of Shi's relatives was seriously injured in a traffic accident. The exact timing of the accident was not disclosed.

Some family members believed the incident was linked to the burial date, saying it had disrupted the family's feng shui and brought a series of misfortunes.

Shi said the AI had provided misleading advice that contributed to tensions within his family. He sued the AI company, seeking an apology and compensation.

Shi even used the same AI to help draft legal documents and outline the litigation procedures, the South China Morning Post reported.

At the hearing, the defendant, Beijing Chuntian Zhiyun Technology Co., said its terms of use clearly state that AI-generated content is for reference only and does not constitute professional advice.

The company also said users accept the relevant service agreement by using the software.

It maintained that there had been no infringement of online copyright.

Shi countered that the agreement unfairly shifted responsibility to users, provided inadequate warnings, and failed to adequately scrutinize the sources of information used by the AI.

The case is being heard this week and has yet to be resolved.