<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hallucination on AI and Society Course</title><link>https://msucerl.org/cmse101/tags/hallucination/</link><description>Recent content in Hallucination on AI and Society Course</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://msucerl.org/cmse101/tags/hallucination/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>4.3 AI in Legal Knowledge Work: The Mata v. Avianca Case</title><link>https://msucerl.org/cmse101/use-cases/4-3-legal-knowledge-work-chatgpt/</link><pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://msucerl.org/cmse101/use-cases/4-3-legal-knowledge-work-chatgpt/</guid><description>&lt;h1 id="ai-in-legal-knowledge-work-the-mata-v-avianca-case"&gt;AI in Legal Knowledge Work: The Mata v. Avianca Case&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;h2 id="context--systems-architecture"&gt;Context &amp;amp; Systems Architecture&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The sudden availability of commercial Large Language Models (LLMs) catalyzed intense corporate hype regarding the complete automation of knowledge-work sectors, particularly the legal profession. This narrative faced an unprecedented real-world crisis in the federal case of &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mata v. Avianca, Inc.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; (2023) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Faced with a complex statute of limitations motion to dismiss, plaintiff&amp;rsquo;s attorneys utilized OpenAI’s ChatGPT to conduct legal research and draft a formal opposition brief. The resulting judicial breakdown exposed the deep mismatch between consumer expectations of AI intelligence and the actual structural mechanics of predictive language generation.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>