A Word of Caution About AI “Legal Research”
In recent months, we have noticed a growing trend. Many people write to us explaining that they have researched their legal issue using AI tools such as ChatGPT and believe they have discovered cases that support their position. Unfortunately, in many instances the conclusions generated by AI are simply wrong. We regularly see examples where the cases cited do not exist at all, or where the cases do exist but do not say what the AI claims they say. Sometimes the holdings are completely mischaracterized. Other times the AI invents case names, citations, or legal principles that have no basis in reality. This phenomenon is known as an AI hallucination, and it has already caused serious problems in real court proceedings when lawyers or litigants relied on fabricated case law.
We understand that hiring an attorney can be expensive. Legal representation is not always financially possible for everyone, and that reality forces some individuals to consider filing cases pro se (representing themselves). However, aside from the general bias against pro se litigants, there are many reason why we generally discourage people from proceeding pro se whenever possible. The legal system is complex, and small errors in legal research or procedure can have significant consequences. The rise of AI-generated legal research unfortunately gives us another reason for that caution. If you are using AI tools to help guide your research, please treat the output as a starting point, not a final answer.
We also understand that most of you don’t have access to professional legal research databases such as LexisNexis or Westlaw. But you still have access to a powerful and free resource: Google Scholar. By going to scholar.google.com and selecting the “case law” option, you can quickly verify whether the cases you believe support your position actually exist and what they actually say. You do not need to be well-versed in legal research to perform this basic cross-check. If a case cannot easily be found there, that is often a strong indication that something is wrong with the citation you were given.
AI tools can be helpful when used carefully. But relying on them blindly can lead people down the wrong path. Worse, it can expose you to sanctions (even ProSe litigants can be sanctioned for this) and you risk creating bad precedent which will be used against someone who later brings a case with merit and proper citations.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
AI answers are not skewed with subjective emotional bias the way lawmakers and the general public are on this topic. So of course AI answers will be discounted as “fake news” and wrong.
That is incorrect.
Your all correct but we know it is violating our rights and that is wrong in so many ways
Ai is programmed to be agreeable at the very least.
If a question is asked one way. The response will tend to support your argument.
If the question is asked a different way. The response will completely go against the previous response.
It is easily manipulated both on the user’s end and from the vast pool of information.
Whether true, false, or incomplete Ai will always give you the answer that you are looking for.
Conveniently, if you ask ChatGPT to list instances where the US has accepted practices of violating human rights. A long list regular practices comes up some i would have never thought of. But the most obvious and egregious violation of human rights, the registry, is not mentioned. This is because ai is programmed to not bring up topics like that unless prompted specifically.
Bottom line, dont trust ai.
I despise Ai. I have seen false info, or at least incorrect.
I have seen a story recently of a young boy killed himself because Ai told him it was ok.
Ai has given people incorrect directions, sometimes leading people to drive off a cliff, into the water and crash into something.
I know it is here to stay as technology is ever advancing, but not all of it is good. We have to be vigilant in deciding how much technology a person can understand, control or use.
Again, my opinion is I believe it is dangerous and has caused numerous tragedies. But, like many things, it is inevitable and I have no say, other than not using it, but it may come to we all will have to deal with it in some form or fashion. We cannot hide under a log forever. “Shrugs”
Unfortunately, people are starting to rely on AI to do the thinking for them. The boy who committed suicide is an extreme example of that but I’ve seen a few folks overly reliant on it for even menial mental tasks.
Although I cannot get any BAR attorneys to answer, what are the ramifications of Common Law? Since Admiralty Law is soon to be history?
Common law is a legal system. Admiralty deals with navigable waters. What is your question? If you asked a specific question, you probably could get an answer.
Very helpful post, thank you!