3 ms·

Lawyer here. I used to trust Claude as hallucinations are near non-existent now. However for large volume tasks such as due diligence exercises, they still happ

Lawyer here. I used to trust Claude as hallucinations are near non-existent now. However for large volume tasks such as due diligence exercises, they still happen. We also tried Legora's tabular review, there were also numerous halucinated provisions in our due diligence exercise.

rayiner 15d ago
Junior associates hallucinate too...
- NateEag 15d ago
  And when they do, you can train them or fire them, and they learn not to do it. LLMs change not a whit, and there's no one to take responsibility for the failure (and thus no way to fix it). As the new variation on the old theme has it, "A computer can never be held accountable, and so very many people are trying to get them make management decisions."
  - IanCal 15d ago
    You can’t train people to never make a mistake, particularly when doing highly repetitive work like this. You must build your systems to account for that regardless.
    - enraged_camel 14d ago
      Yes, exactly. Humans are non-deterministic as well, just in different ways. A tired human can make all sorts of errors for example, regardless of how much training they've had.
    - NateEag 14d ago
      For sure. But they do learn and improve. The models don't (yet).
      - hollerith 14d ago
        The models improve in the sense that GPT 5.6 succeeds at things GPT 5.5 fails at. It might be that the models have been improving in this sense faster than a human child improves.
  - juiceland 14d ago
    > LLMs change not a whit, and there's no one to take responsibility for the failure (and thus no way to fix it). LLM output is nondeterministic and humans take responsibility for the failure the same way they take responsibility of a photocopy is too dark.
    - NateEag 14d ago
      > humans take responsibility for the failure the same way they take responsibility of a photocopy is too dark. You mean, they notice it's too dark right after making it, change the settings, do it again, and give you the good copy? Because yes, that's my experience of humans.
- podocarp 15d ago
  You can scold juniors and they will learn. You can't scold Claude.
  - stevesimmons 15d ago
    Surely the rate of improvement in new LLM models is the equivalent mechanism?
  - eru 15d ago
    You can scold Claude. Just doesn't make a difference.
    - chrisjj 15d ago
      ... until you hit Claude's risable "model welfare" protection.
egorfine 14d ago
Is it possible to catch those hallucinations using another LLM with a strong fact checker prompt with sources provided in output for human validation?

rayiner 15d ago

Junior associates hallucinate too...

NateEag 15d ago
And when they do, you can train them or fire them, and they learn not to do it. LLMs change not a whit, and there's no one to take responsibility for the failure (and thus no way to fix it). As the new variation on the old theme has it, "A computer can never be held accountable, and so very many people are trying to get them make management decisions."
- IanCal 15d ago
  You can’t train people to never make a mistake, particularly when doing highly repetitive work like this. You must build your systems to account for that regardless.
  - enraged_camel 14d ago
    Yes, exactly. Humans are non-deterministic as well, just in different ways. A tired human can make all sorts of errors for example, regardless of how much training they've had.
  - NateEag 14d ago
    For sure. But they do learn and improve. The models don't (yet).
    - hollerith 14d ago
      The models improve in the sense that GPT 5.6 succeeds at things GPT 5.5 fails at. It might be that the models have been improving in this sense faster than a human child improves.
- juiceland 14d ago
  > LLMs change not a whit, and there's no one to take responsibility for the failure (and thus no way to fix it). LLM output is nondeterministic and humans take responsibility for the failure the same way they take responsibility of a photocopy is too dark.
  - NateEag 14d ago
    > humans take responsibility for the failure the same way they take responsibility of a photocopy is too dark. You mean, they notice it's too dark right after making it, change the settings, do it again, and give you the good copy? Because yes, that's my experience of humans.
podocarp 15d ago
You can scold juniors and they will learn. You can't scold Claude.
- stevesimmons 15d ago
  Surely the rate of improvement in new LLM models is the equivalent mechanism?
- eru 15d ago
  You can scold Claude. Just doesn't make a difference.
  - chrisjj 15d ago
    ... until you hit Claude's risable "model welfare" protection.

egorfine 14d ago

Is it possible to catch those hallucinations using another LLM with a strong fact checker prompt with sources provided in output for human validation?