Judges Blinded by AI Hallucinations: 80% Report Experience with Fake Precedents

Eight out of 10 judges have reportedly experienced cases where fake precedents generated by artificial intelligence (AI) were cited.

The Supreme Court released the results of a survey on Monday regarding the citation of false AI precedents, which was conducted among judges at all levels of court for 10 days starting from October 6.

As cases of citing false laws and precedents due to AI hallucination continue to occur, the Supreme Court conducted the survey targeting judges for the first time to ascertain the actual situation, with a total of 360 sitting judges responding.

According to the survey results, about 80 percent of judges in charge of civil, family, and administrative cases answered that they had experienced "cases of citing false precedents" that either do not exist or differ from actual contents.

By category, the most common experience was the citation of non-existent precedents, reported by 196 judges (80.7%), followed by the citation of false precedents by 159 judges (65.4%), false or non-existent laws by 41 judges (16.9%), and false or non-existent academic papers or literature by 10 judges (4.1%).

Cases citing false or non-existent precedents were found in documents submitted not only by litigants who filed lawsuits but also by attorneys.

Regarding the subjects who cited false precedents, 164 respondents (69.5%) pointed to the litigants themselves, while 136 judges (57.6%) cited legal representatives or defense counsel who are attorneys.

While criticisms persist that when false precedents are submitted, both the opposing party and the bench must spend additional time verifying them, thereby hindering prompt trials, 91.7% of the responding judges answered that "institutional countermeasures need to be established" regarding the citation of false AI precedents.

Regarding specific measures, suggestions included establishing grounds for imposing fines, imposing an obligation to verify cited precedents, and requesting disciplinary action against attorneys for repeated false citations.

Based on the results of this survey, the National Court Administration plans to formulate effective countermeasures in terms of systems and practical operations.

(Reported by Son Hyeong-an | Video Editing by Kihyun Lee | Design by Lee Jung-joo | Produced by SBS Digital News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.