# Can a Hallucinating Model help in Reducing Human "Hallucination"?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00843 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.00843/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 36 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 May 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Evaluating the Logical Reasoning Ability of ChatGPT and GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03439/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17012/) (2023)
- [Logical Fallacy Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.13758/) (2022)
- [How susceptible are LLMs to Logical Fallacies?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.09853/) (2023)
- [When LLMs Meet Cunning Texts: A Fallacy Understanding Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11100/) (2024)
- [Creating a Large Language Model of a Philosopher](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.01339/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The prevalence of unwarranted beliefs, spanning pseudoscience, logical fallacies, and conspiracy theories, presents substantial societal hurdles and the risk of disseminating misinformation. Utilizing established psychometric assessments, this study explores the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) vis-a-vis the average human in detecting prevalent logical pitfalls. We undertake a philosophical inquiry, juxtaposing the rationality of humans against that of LLMs. Furthermore, we propose methodologies for harnessing LLMs to counter misconceptions, drawing upon psychological models of persuasion such as cognitive dissonance theory and elaboration likelihood theory. Through this endeavor, we highlight the potential of LLMs as personalized misinformation debunking agents.