I don't like "hallucination" in this context. "Confabulation" seems much more accurate. Last time I tried to correct AI, it assured me that I'm wrong, and for

I don't like "hallucination" in this context. "Confabulation" seems much more accurate. Last time I tried to correct AI, it assured me that I'm wrong, and for a short, funny moment, it started insulting me before the text got scrapped and a generic "something went wrong" placeholder appeared. I don't think putting two AIs together will solve the problem. The legal references all need to follow relatively standardised formats, so those should be easy to check. Of course there's no way to know for sure if the case is actually about the subject that it's being used as for support, but bare minimum you could filter our AI responses with fake cases. Because AI can't differentiate truth from fiction, it's essential that a real lawyer double checks the documents AI will generate, including reading referenced cases and verifying that they support the supposed argument. That way, they can skip a difficult part of their job without actually lying to the court when they submit "their" documents. For important fields like law, you will always need a human verification step.