Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models

Clicks: 31
ID: 283300
2024
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #702 of 803 articles by views in arXiv

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 803 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Do large language models (LLMs) know the law? These models are increasingly being used to augment legal practice, education, and research, yet their revolutionary potential is threatened by the presence of hallucinations -- textual output that is not consistent with legal facts. We present the first systematic evidence of these hallucinations, documenting LLMs' varying performance across jurisdictions, courts, time periods, and cases. Our work makes four key contributions. First, we develop a typology of legal hallucinations, providing a conceptual framework for future research in this area. Second, we find that legal hallucinations are alarmingly prevalent, occurring between 58% of the time with ChatGPT 4 and 88% with Llama 2, when these models are asked specific, verifiable questions about random federal court cases. Third, we illustrate that LLMs often fail to correct a user's incorrect legal assumptions in a contra-factual question setup. Fourth, we provide evidence that LLMs cannot always predict, or do not always know, when they are producing legal hallucinations. Taken together, our findings caution against the rapid and unsupervised integration of popular LLMs into legal tasks. Even experienced lawyers must remain wary of legal hallucinations, and the risks are highest for those who stand to benefit from LLMs the most -- pro se litigants or those without access to traditional legal resources.
Reference Key
ho2024large Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Matthew Dahl; Varun Magesh; Mirac Suzgun; Daniel E. Ho
Journal arXiv
Year 2024
DOI
DOI not found
URL
http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.01301v2
Keywords
cs.ai cs.cy cs.cl

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.