kaal:claim:5541658-021

The overreliance concern is not uniform: some studies find that annotators do not over rely on LLM output when labelling court opinions for legally relevant factors, and other studies find an aversion to AI generated legal content consistent with algorithmic aversion in other domains.

On the other hand, some studies have found that students were unlikely to over rely on LLM output when labelling court opinions as to legally relevant factors.

Wulf A. Kaal, Morgan A. Gray, The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law (2025), B. Overreliance and Errors, p. 26
https://ssrn.com/abstract=5541658 · source PDF

Wulf A. Kaal, Morgan A. Gray, The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law (2025). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5541658

• annotation tasks labelling court opinions for legally relevant factors
• studies of lawyers' preferences between human and LLM authored documents

empiricalsupport: evidencedempirical-evidence

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is e543a2d698fcd522d4d02e034cc9ee1344d0015d2c824b40b9e05ab7c0728c60. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/98581db9137f3469...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/5541658-021.md | sha256sum