GPT-4: While LLMs can be valuable tools for certain legal tasks, they are not yet reliable enough to replace professional legal judgment and thorough legal research

Question 1 of 2 for ChatGPT-4: Please analyze "Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models" and tell me what is says in easy to understand language

ChatGPT-4’s answer:The paper "Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models" focuses on evaluating how well large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT and others, handle legal information. Here's a simplified breakdown of the key findings:

1. Legal Hallucinations: The main issue addressed is "legal hallucinations," which are instances where LLMs produce responses that are not consistent with actual legal facts or doctrine.

2. Study Approach: The authors conducted a study using various legal queries and compared the responses from LLMs against structured legal metadata to check their accuracy and consistency.

3. Key Findings:

   1. Prevalence of Hallucinations: It was found that legal hallucinations are quite common. For instance, ChatGPT 3.5 showed a hallucination rate of 69% and another model, Llama 2, showed 88% when asked specific questions about federal court cases.

   2. Response to Contra-factual Queries: The models often failed to correct a user's incorrect legal assumptions in a setup where the questions were based on wrong legal premises.

   3. Self-awareness of Hallucinations: Evidence suggests that LLMs are not always aware of when they are producing legal hallucinations.

   4. Varying Performance: The study found that the performance of these models varies depending on the complexity of the task, the court level, jurisdiction, and the prominence of the case.

4. Implications: These findings suggest caution in rapidly integrating LLMs like ChatGPT into legal tasks. Even experienced lawyers need to be wary of legal hallucinations. The risks are particularly high for those without access to traditional legal resources.

5. Conclusion: While LLMs promise to make legal information more accessible and affordable, their current shortcomings in generating accurate and reliable legal statements pose significant challenges.

In summary, the paper highlights the limitations of current LLMs in accurately handling legal information and underscores the need for careful consideration and improvement in their use within the legal domain.

Question 2 of 2 for ChatGPT-4: Would you recommend that professionals active in the legal space use LLMs given these findings?

GPT-4’s answer:Based on the findings in the paper "Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models," it's advisable to exercise caution when using large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT in professional legal settings. Here are some points to consider:

1. High Rate of Legal Hallucinations: The significant prevalence of legal hallucinations (inaccurate or factually incorrect legal information) indicates that LLMs can sometimes provide unreliable legal information.

2. Risk of Misinformation: Given the complexity and specificity required in legal matters, there's a risk that LLMs might propagate misinformation, especially in cases involving nuanced legal interpretation or less commonly discussed legal principles.

3. Use as a Preliminary Tool: LLMs could be used for preliminary research or for generating a broad understanding of legal topics. However, their outputs should not be solely relied upon for legal advice or decision-making.

4. Need for Expert Verification: Any information obtained from an LLM should be cross-checked and verified by legal professionals. It’s crucial to cross-reference with actual legal texts, case law, and statutory provisions.

5. Educational and Supportive Role: LLMs might be beneficial for educational purposes or as support tools, helping legal professionals to brainstorm, draft initial documents, or get a quick overview of a topic.

6. Awareness of Limitations: Legal professionals should be fully aware of the limitations of LLMs and should use them with an understanding that they do not replace legal expertise, judgment, or rigorous legal research.

7. Evolving Technology: It's important to keep in mind that LLM technology is rapidly evolving. Future improvements might reduce the rate of inaccuracies, making them more reliable in legal contexts over time.

In conclusion, while LLMs can be valuable tools for certain legal tasks, they are not yet reliable enough to replace professional legal judgment and thorough legal research. They should be used as supplementary tools with a clear understanding of their current limitations.