Objection Overruled! Lay People can Distinguish Large Language Models from Lawyers, but still Favour Advice from an LLM
<|reference_start|>Objection Overruled! Lay People can Distinguish Large Language Models from Lawyers, but still Favour Advice from an LLM: Large Language Models (LLMs) are seemingly infiltrating every domain, and the legal context is no exception. In this paper, we present the results of three experiments (total N=288) that investigated lay people's willingness to act upon, and their ability to discriminate between, LLM- and lawyer-generated legal advice. In Experiment 1, participants judged their willingness to act on legal advice when the source of the advice was either known or unknown. When the advice source was unknown, participants indicated that they were significantly more willing to act on the LLM-generated advice. This result was replicated in Experiment 2. Intriguingly, despite participants indicating higher willingness to act on LLM-generated advice in Experiments 1 and 2, participants discriminated between the LLM- and lawyer-generated texts significantly above chance-level in Experiment 3. Lastly, we discuss potential explanations and risks of our findings, limitations and future work, and the importance of language complexity and real-world comparability.<|reference_end|>
@article{schneiders2024objection,
    title={Objection Overruled! Lay People can Distinguish Large Language Models
  from Lawyers, but still Favour Advice from an LLM},
    author={Eike Schneiders, Tina Seabrooke, Joshua Krook, Richard Hyde, Natalie
  Leesakul, Jeremie Clos, Joel Fischer},
    journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07871},
    year={2024},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    eprint={2409.07871},
    primaryClass={cs.HC cs.CY}
}