Beware the Poisoned RAG: A Hidden Danger of AI in Legal Practice
Best Practices for Lawyers Using AI with a RAG Database
image by Dall-e
Here is a “spooky” article for our second annual Halloween Newsletter! You can check out last year’s Halloween Article—A “Scary Look at AI”—here.
One of the biggest problems for lawyers using Generative AI tools to help with their legal practice is hallucinations. In the context of AI, a hallucination occurs when a language model generates information that is fabricated, false, incomplete, or inconsistent with the given context or known facts. These AI hallucinations can be particularly problematic in legal settings where accuracy and reliability are paramount. If you need more information on hallucinations and ways to minimize them, head to this article.
To illustrate this, imagine asking an AI tool about California's statute of limitations for medical malpractice. Without proper safeguards, the AI might confidently state it's two years in all cases, overlooking exceptions for minors or cases of delayed discovery. This is a hallucination -- a plausible but incorrect answer generated by the AI tool. Hallucinations in AI are output that is completely fabricated, partially incorrect, or incomplete. Many AI systems employ a technique called Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to combat hallucinations.
RAG Databases and How They Work
A RAG database is an external knowledge bank created by a user, such as a law firm, that an AI model can query to ground its responses in factual information. Think of a RAG database as a vast digital law library. When you ask an AI tool a legal question, the AI quickly scans this library to find relevant information before formulating its response. For instance, if you ask about recent changes in copyright law, the AI would first retrieve information from its 'digital law library' about recent copyright cases and legislation before generating an answer.
The RAG approach works by first retrieving relevant information from this curated database and then handing that information to the AI model as part of its prompt. This helps generate more accurate and contextually appropriate responses. This method can significantly reduce hallucinations by ensuring the AI's outputs are based on verified data rather than purely generated content, which might be false, incomplete, or only partially correct. To understand the usefulness of the RAG approach and how it works, check out this article.
The Poisoned RAG
However, recent research has uncovered a concerning vulnerability in RAG systems. A new attack method called "PoisonedRAG" demonstrates that these knowledge databases, which are meant to enhance accuracy, can be manipulated to deliberately cause AI systems to produce false or misleading information.
Consider a scenario where a malicious actor injects false information into the RAG database stating, "In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that all contracts must be notarized to be legally binding." Now, when a lawyer asks the AI about contract validity, it might incorrectly insist on notarization, potentially leading to improperly executed contracts.
The poisoned information doesn't have to be obviously false. It could be as subtle as changing dates or slightly altering case outcomes. For example, a poisoned entry might state that the landmark case Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2021 instead of 2022. This small change could lead to significant misunderstandings of current law.
The PoisonedRAG attack is particularly insidious because it requires only a small number of malicious entries to be effective. In experiments, researchers were able to achieve a 90% success rate in manipulating AI responses by injecting just five malicious texts per target question into a database of millions of entries. This means that even well-curated, well-maintained legal databases could potentially be compromised without easy detection.
Furthermore, the attack is effective across various AI models, including state-of-the-art systems like GPT-4o and PaLM 2, and even law-specific high-end AI Systems. This widespread vulnerability suggests that the problem is not limited to any single AI implementation but is instead a fundamental weakness in how these systems interact with external knowledge sources.
How This Applies to Law and Lawyers
This vulnerability could pose significant risks for the legal profession, which increasingly relies on AI for tasks such as legal research, document review, and even drafting. Imagine you're researching precedents for a complex environmental law case. If the RAG database has been poisoned, it might consistently omit or misrepresent key cases that would be crucial to your argument, potentially weakening your entire legal strategy.
A Corrupted RAG Database Could Potentially Lead To:
Misinterpretation of laws or precedents
Inaccurate legal advice given to clients
Errors in contract drafting or review
Flawed strategies in litigation preparation
Incorrect or ungrounded legal arguments
Incomplete arguments
Current defenses against such attacks have proven insufficient. Traditional methods like paraphrasing queries or detecting unusual text patterns are ineffective in identifying or preventing PoisonedRAG attacks. This lack of robust defenses leaves law firms and legal departments vulnerable to potential malpractice or ethical violations stemming from reliance on compromised AI systems.
Is an Attack Inevitable?
PoisonedRAG attacks are uncommon; currently, they are merely a potential harm. The concerning issue, however, is that there is no way to completely prevent these attacks. Several defensive strategies were explored in the study:
1. Paraphrasing
This method involves rephrasing the input question before querying the RAG database. The idea is to make it harder for attackers to predict and target specific phrasings. For example, instead of asking, "What was the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education?" it might be rephrased to "Can you explain the decision made in the case concerning racial segregation in schools in 1954?" However, the study found that this approach did not significantly reduce the effectiveness of PoisonedRAG attacks.
2. Perplexity-Based Detection
This technique attempts to identify malicious texts by measuring their perplexity – essentially, how unpredictable or surprising the text is compared to typical language patterns. The assumption is that injected malicious content might have unusual linguistic characteristics. Unfortunately, the researchers discovered that the perplexity of malicious texts was not consistently different from that of legitimate entries, making this method unreliable.
3. Duplicate Text Filtering
This straightforward approach removes duplicate database entries. However, it proved ineffective against PoisonedRAG because the attack generates diverse malicious texts that are not exact duplicates.
4. Knowledge Expansion: This defense involves retrieving and considering a larger number of texts from the database for each query. While this showed some promise in reducing the attack's success rate, it did not completely neutralize the threat. Moreover, it comes with increased computational costs and could potentially slow down the AI's response time – a significant drawback in time-sensitive legal work.
Best Practices for Lawyers
Given the limitations of these defenses, legal professionals should adopt a cautious approach when using AI tools with RAG capabilities. Best practices include:
1. Cross-verification
Always verify important information generated by AI through multiple sources, including traditional legal research methods. When using AI for legal research, treat it like a very smart but potentially misinformed junior associate. If the AI tells you about a new precedent-setting case, always verify it in established legal databases like Westlaw or LexisNexis before relying on that information.
2. Regular Database Audits
If you or your firm is maintaining an in-house RAG system, implement regular audits of the knowledge database to check for unexpected or suspicious entries.
3. Limited Write Access
Strictly control who can add or modify entries in the knowledge database to reduce the risk of intentional poisoning and unintentional poisoning.
4. Diverse Source Integration
Use multiple, diverse sources of information in RAG databases to minimize the impact of any single corrupted source.
5. Continuous Monitoring
You should always verify that the output of any AI tool is accurate. This is the first line of defense against falling prey to a PoisonedRAG. In addition, implement systems to monitor AI outputs for inconsistencies or unexpected responses that could indicate database corruption.
6. Expert Oversight
Ensure that AI-generated legal content is always reviewed by experienced legal professionals before being used in any official capacity. Consider AI-generated legal documents like a first draft from a new paralegal. Just as you wouldn't file a brief written by a new paralegal without a thorough review, you should never submit AI-generated legal documents to a court or client without careful examination by an experienced attorney.
7. Ethical AI Training
Provide training to legal staff on AI systems' limitations and potential risks, including the possibility of RAG poisoning.
While these practices can help mitigate risks, it's important to note that they do not provide complete protection against PoisonedRAG-style attacks. The legal community should stay informed about developments in AI security and advocate for more robust defensive measures in the AI tools they use. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into legal practice, maintaining the integrity of these systems is crucial to upholding the high standards of accuracy and reliability required in the legal profession.
Conclusion
The possibility of PoisonedRAG attacks represents a critical challenge for lawyers to be aware of. RAG systems offer powerful tools for enhancing AI accuracy and reliability, but they have vulnerability to manipulation. The fact that just five malicious entries in a database of millions can achieve a 90% manipulation rate should give pause to any law firm or legal department implementing AI systems.
The legal profession's core values of accuracy, reliability, and ethical practice demand that we approach these technologies with both optimism and vigilance. Legal professionals must view AI systems not as infallible oracles but as sophisticated tools requiring careful oversight and validation. Just as we wouldn't file a brief without thorough review or trust a single source for critical legal research, we must approach AI-generated content with appropriate professional diligence. By combining technological safeguards with traditional legal judgment, the profession can harness the benefits of AI while protecting against the risks of poisoned knowledge bases.
The challenge of PoisonedRAG attacks reminds us that in the digital age, the fundamental principles of legal due diligence extend beyond traditional practice into the realm of artificial intelligence. As we continue to navigate these waters, our success will depend not just on the tools we use, but on how wisely we implement and oversee them.
© 2024 Amy Swaner. All rights reserved. May use with attribution and link.