> 21 of 23 citations are fake

This was from the model available in June 2023

I've taken this hallucination issue to heart since the first time this headline occurred, but if you just started with leading LLM's just today, you wouldn't have this issue. I'd say it would be down to like 1 out of 23 at this point.

Definitely keep verifying especially because the models available to you keep changing if you use cloud services, but this September 2025 is not June 2023 anymore and the conversation needs to be much more nuanced.

▲

tdeck 2 days ago | parent [-]

Frankly I'd argue that something that produces 1 in 23 fake citations may be worse than producing 21 fake citations. It's more likely to make people complacent and more likely to go undetected.

People have more car crashes in areas they know well because they stop paying attention. The same principle applies here.

	▲	DannyBee 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		All citations should have been shepardized. This is standard practice for lawyers for decades. Court rules always require you only cite good law. So you will be excortiated for valid but overturned citations too. This is actually one of the more infuriating things about all of this. Non-lawyers read this stuff and they’re like oh look it hallucinated some cases and citations. It actually should still have been caught 100% of the time and anyone submitting briefs without verifying their cites is not fit to be a lawyer. It's malpractice, AI or not.
	▲	yieldcrv 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		yep, possibly. I’m glad we have a way to see how the situation has improved