Law.com reports
LexisNexis’ chief product officer argued that the professor tested capabilities that Lexis+ AI does not yet support.
On Nov. 19, LexisNexis released a statement in response to the Canadian Bar Association’s National Magazine opinion column from University of British Columbia law professor Benjamin Perrin detailing Lexis+ AI’s limitations.
When he tested out the Canadian release of the LexisNexis’ generative artificial intelligence solution Lexis+ AI, Perrin said the tool had cited fake legislation, was sometimes unresponsive, provided simplistic headnotes as case summaries, and its answers, though substantial, were riddled with errors.
“I found Lexis+ AI disappointing,” he wrote. “I encountered non-existent legislation referenced in the results … headnotes reproduced verbatim and presented as ‘case summaries,’ and responses with significant legal inaccuracies.”
Following the negative review’s publication, LexisNexis chief product officer Jeff Pfeifer said in a statement that some of the shortcomings Perrin wrote about were due to capabilities or features that had not been developed yet for Lexis+ AI.
“Professor Perrin requested a summary for a case Lexis+ AI had already summarized through editorial review,” Pfeifer said. “In these instances, Lexis+ AI defaults to the editorial summary and does not currently support multi-turn requests.”
Pfeifer added that Lexis+ AI is also not able to execute motion drafting capabilities as Perrin requested in his testing. He said LexisNexis will improve its transparency in its messaging for customers and will continue to review Lexis+ AI responses.
Although LexisNexis does not guarantee its products can remove hallucinations, it does claim its Lexis+ AI solution minimizes the risk of them.
