Join the conversation

Join the community of Machine Learners and AI enthusiasts.

Sign Up
singhsidhukuldeepΒ 
posted an update Nov 20
Post
1259
Sorry judge, my lawyer hallucinated? πŸ˜‚ If you get an AI lawyer, you would want it to be hallucination-free!

New @Stanford -@Yale research reveals surprising findings about leading AI legal research tools. Here's what you need to know:

>> Key Findings
The study tested LexisNexis (Lexis+ AI), Thomson Reuters (Westlaw AI & Ask Practical Law AI), and GPT-4, finding hallucination rates between 17-33% despite claims of being "hallucination-free".

>> Technical Deep Dive
The research evaluated these tools using Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) architecture, which operates in two crucial steps:

1. Retrieval System:
- Uses neural text embeddings to capture semantic meaning
- Employs both lexical and semantic search mechanisms
- Implements document filtering and extraction
- Retrieves relevant legal documents from vast databases

2. Generation Pipeline:
- Processes retrieved documents alongside original queries
- Synthesizes information from multiple legal sources
- Generates responses based on retrieved context
- Includes citation verification mechanisms

>> Performance Breakdown:
- Lexis+ AI: 65% accuracy rate
- Westlaw AI: 42% accuracy rate
- Ask Practical Law AI: Over 60% incomplete answers

>> Why This Matters
This research exposes critical vulnerabilities in AI legal tools that lawyers increasingly rely on. It's essential for legal professionals to understand these limitations when incorporating AI into their practice.