# Do Large Language Models Hallucinate Electric Fata Morganas?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18816 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.18816/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 37 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [FEQA: A Question Answering Evaluation Framework for Faithfulness Assessment in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.03754/) (2020)
- [A Stitch in Time Saves Nine: Detecting and Mitigating Hallucinations of LLMs by Validating Low-Confidence Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03987/) (2023)
- [The Curious Case of Hallucinations in Neural Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.06683/) (2021)
- [On the Origin of Hallucinations in Conversational Models: Is it the Datasets or the Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.07931/) (2022)
- [Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) 2.0: A Manifesto of Open Challenges and Interdisciplinary Research Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.19775/) (2023)
- [Towards Mitigating Hallucination in Large Language Models via Self-Reflection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06271/) (2023)
- [AI Hallucinations: A Misnomer Worth Clarifying](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06796/) (2024)
- [On the Bias-Variance Tradeoff: Textbooks Need an Update](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.08286/) (2019)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Who Put the I in AI? Provenance and the Admissibility of Machine Self-Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.29494/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

AI hallucinations - that is, outputs which are made up, cannot be verified, or contradict the source material - are generally regarded as an engineering flaw to be dealt with. This paper contends that they also have philosophical significance when it comes to the question of machine consciousness. We examine the known causes of hallucinations in large language models - such as source-target divergence, discrepancies between training and inference, and overfitting - and we present two empirical investigations. In the first, we apply successive generations of the GPT model to ambiguous factual questions under different temperature settings, finding that higher temperatures result in plausible but incorrect answers while lower temperatures lead to factually accurate ones. The sampling parameters that cause a model to seem creative or spontaneous and thus more likely to pass behavioral tests of intelligence are the same ones that increase its hallucination rate. In the second, we look at an encoder-only model that has been trained on encyclopedic data and which answers questions of the same type factually and without embellishment, indicating that hallucinations are due to exposure to subjective and socially diverse training data rather than to the development of any cognitive ability. Using references to Turing, Searle's Chinese Room, the frame problem, and the cybernetic tradition of Wiener and Ashby, we claim that a model's self-reports of emotion or sentience come within the definition of hallucination, and that any future occurrence of machine consciousness might remain epistemically inaccessible since it would be indistinguishable from a sufficiently advanced hallucination.