It started small — a few lawyers experimenting with AI tools to draft their case briefs. Then came the horror stories.
Courts began receiving filings peppered with fake citations, misquoted rulings, and even imaginary judges.
In one instance described in an Associated Press report, a French researcher uncovered hundreds of AI-generated legal documents riddled with made-up cases.
What was once billed as “smart assistance” has now turned into a credibility crisis.
The scary part isn’t just that AI gets things wrong — it’s that it does so confidently. In the legal world, that’s like a pilot flying through fog convinced the sky is clear.
Some firms have begun imposing internal bans on unverified AI tools, while others are setting up in-house systems with human oversight to keep the hallucinations in check.
Still, the temptation to cut corners is strong, especially as workloads rise and budgets shrink.
And it’s not just the law that’s wobbling. A growing number of business leaders are admitting that heavy use of AI might be quietly eroding employee skills.
A recent survey revealed that while most executives tout productivity gains from automation, nearly half worry that over-reliance on AI is making workers less creative and more passive — a shift explored in a recent Business Insider piece.
The irony is hard to miss: we built these systems to make us smarter and faster, but they might be doing the opposite.
In academia, the same pattern is emerging. Researchers studying students who use AI writing assistants found a clear decline in analytical depth and cognitive persistence.
Those who let the machine “think” for them often produced smoother sentences but emptier arguments.
The study, published by a team of educators and summarized in a Springer Open analysis on learning habits, suggests that younger users are especially vulnerable to skill atrophy because they trust digital authority more easily than older generations.
Meanwhile, offices across the U.S. are filling up with what some tech critics are calling “workslop” — a tidal wave of AI-written reports, proposals, and meeting summaries that look polished but lack originality or critical insight.
One writer captured it perfectly in a Guardian investigation into the new workplace culture, describing AI output as “content that sounds like it means something but doesn’t.” It’s efficient, sure, but it’s also empty calories for the mind.
So where does that leave us? Somewhere between awe and alarm. I’ve used AI tools myself — they’re great for brainstorming, summarizing, or breaking through writer’s block.
But every time I see one invent a quote or miss a nuance, I’m reminded that no algorithm understands truth.
Not really. The trick isn’t to stop using AI; it’s to remember who’s supposed to be thinking.
