Caveat Lector: Large Language Models in Legal Practice

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.09163v1
• Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:19:41 GMT
• Title: Caveat Lector: Large Language Models in Legal Practice
• Authors: Eliza Mik,
• Abstract summary: The fascination with large language models derives from the fact that many users lack the expertise to evaluate the quality of the generated text. The dangerous combination of fluency and superficial plausibility leads to the temptation to trust the generated text and creates the risk of overreliance.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The current fascination with large language models, or LLMs, derives from the fact that many users lack the expertise to evaluate the quality of the generated text. LLMs may therefore appear more capable than they actually are. The dangerous combination of fluency and superficial plausibility leads to the temptation to trust the generated text and creates the risk of overreliance. Who would not trust perfect legalese? Relying recent findings in both technical and legal scholarship, this Article counterbalances the overly optimistic predictions as to the role of LLMs in legal practice. Integrating LLMs into legal workstreams without a better comprehension of their limitations, will create inefficiencies if not outright risks. Notwithstanding their unprecedented ability to generate text, LLMs do not understand text. Without the ability to understand meaning, LLMs will remain unable to use language, to acquire knowledge and to perform complex reasoning tasks. Trained to model language on the basis of stochastic word predictions, LLMs cannot distinguish fact from fiction. Their knowledge of the law is limited to word strings memorized in their parameters. It is also incomplete and largely incorrect. LLMs operate at the level of word distributions, not at the level of verified facts. The resulting propensity to hallucinate, to produce statements that are incorrect but appear helpful and relevant, is alarming in high-risk areas like legal services. At present, lawyers should beware of relying on text generated by LLMs.

Related papers

• LLMs' Understanding of Natural Language Revealed [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are the result of a massive experiment in bottom-up, data-driven reverse engineering of language at scale. We will focus on testing LLMs for their language understanding capabilities, their supposed forte.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T01:21:11Z)
• Scaling Laws for Fact Memorization of Large Language Models [67.94080978627363]
  We analyze the scaling laws for Large Language Models' fact knowledge and their behaviors of memorizing different types of facts. We find that LLMs' fact knowledge capacity has a linear and negative exponential law relationship with model size and training epochs. Our findings reveal the capacity and characteristics of LLMs' fact knowledge learning, which provide directions for LLMs' fact knowledge augmentation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-22T03:32:09Z)
• Semantically Diverse Language Generation for Uncertainty Estimation in Language Models [5.8034373350518775]
  Large language models (LLMs) can suffer from hallucinations when generating text. Current LLMs generate text in an autoregressive fashion by predicting and appending text tokens. We introduce Semantically Diverse Language Generation to quantify predictive uncertainty in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T17:53:34Z)
• Potential and Limitations of LLMs in Capturing Structured Semantics: A Case Study on SRL [78.80673954827773]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) play a crucial role in capturing structured semantics to enhance language understanding, improve interpretability, and reduce bias. We propose using Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) as a fundamental task to explore LLMs' ability to extract structured semantics. We find interesting potential: LLMs can indeed capture semantic structures, and scaling-up doesn't always mirror potential. We are surprised to discover that significant overlap in the errors is made by both LLMs and untrained humans, accounting for almost 30% of all errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T11:44:05Z)
• AlignedCoT: Prompting Large Language Models via Native-Speaking Demonstrations [52.43593893122206]
  Alignedcot is an in-context learning technique for invoking Large Language Models. It achieves consistent and correct step-wise prompts in zero-shot scenarios. We conduct experiments on mathematical reasoning and commonsense reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-22T17:24:21Z)
• LLatrieval: LLM-Verified Retrieval for Verifiable Generation [67.93134176912477]
  Verifiable generation aims to let the large language model (LLM) generate text with supporting documents. We propose LLatrieval (Large Language Model Verified Retrieval), where the LLM updates the retrieval result until it verifies that the retrieved documents can sufficiently support answering the question. Experiments show that LLatrieval significantly outperforms extensive baselines and achieves state-of-the-art results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T01:38:02Z)
• Large Language Models: The Need for Nuance in Current Debates and a Pragmatic Perspective on Understanding [1.3654846342364308]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are unparalleled in their ability to generate grammatically correct, fluent text. This position paper critically assesses three points recurring in critiques of LLM capacities. We outline a pragmatic perspective on the issue of real' understanding and intentionality in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:51:04Z)
• Improving Factual Consistency of Text Summarization by Adversarially Decoupling Comprehension and Embellishment Abilities of LLMs [67.56087611675606]
  Large language models (LLMs) generate summaries that are factually inconsistent with original articles. These hallucinations are challenging to detect through traditional methods. We propose an adversarially DEcoupling method to disentangle the abilities of LLMs (DECENT)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T08:40:16Z)
• Why LLMs Hallucinate, and How to Get (Evidential) Closure: Perceptual, Intensional, and Extensional Learning for Faithful Natural Language Generation [0.0]
  We show that LLMs hallucinate because their output is not constrained to be synonymous with claims for which they have evidence. We then show how to constrain LLMs to produce output that does satisfy evidential closure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T20:35:52Z)
• LawBench: Benchmarking Legal Knowledge of Large Language Models [35.2812008533622]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in various aspects. It is unclear how much legal knowledge they possess and whether they can reliably perform legal-related tasks. LawBench has been meticulously crafted to have precise assessment of the LLMs' legal capabilities from three cognitive levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-28T09:35:59Z)
• DoLa: Decoding by Contrasting Layers Improves Factuality in Large Language Models [79.01926242857613]
  Large language models (LLMs) are prone to hallucinations, generating content that deviates from facts seen during pretraining. We propose a simple decoding strategy for reducing hallucinations with pretrained LLMs. We find that this Decoding by Contrasting Layers (DoLa) approach is able to better surface factual knowledge and reduce the generation of incorrect facts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-07T17:45:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.