Does that reading intonate that had the plaintiff chosen a more benign injection, only to prove that an LLM was involved, rather than to alter the outcome, the judge would have looked at the situation differently?
No, it doesn’t intimate that the judge would forgive benign or joke attempts at prompt injection to “expose” the use of AI, the article specifically mentions that the judge sanctioned them as a result of them continuing to add hidden text that only contained assinine comments after the initial attack. RTFA
I think you should read the source material in full. But there was no AI involved in the process, it was read on printed paper by a human being who saw the prompt and was like "lol I am not AI". The order talks about how many courts do use AI systems but even then the precedent on prompt injection is that its seen as dishonest and the automated systems (in a different case in a different country, talked about in this as a reference) also caught the prompt injection attempt. In all cases, it is not seen as okay to do.
