AI hallucinations: why ChatGPT makes things up, and how to catch it
An AI hallucination is a confident, believable answer that is false, like a fake book title, a wrong date or a court case that never existed. It happens because language models predict likely-sounding text and are trained in ways that reward guessing over saying “I don’t know”. You can reduce it by giving the AI your sources, allowing it to admit uncertainty and checking anything important yourself.
- 1
What is an AI hallucination?
OpenAI defines hallucinations as “plausible but false statements generated by language models.” The key word is plausible. A hallucination does not look like an error. It looks like a normal, confident answer.
OpenAI’s own researchers gave an example from their work. When a popular chatbot was asked for the PhD thesis title of one of the authors, it gave three different titles, all wrong. Asked for his birthday, it gave three different dates, also all wrong.
- Made-up books, research papers or court cases
- Wrong dates, numbers and statistics stated precisely
- Links to web pages that never existed
- Summaries that add details not in the original
- 2
Why does AI make things up?
Remember from the LLM lesson that a model writes by predicting the next word. During training it sees huge amounts of text, but nothing labels each sentence as true or false. Patterns like grammar get learned well. Rare, one-off facts, like a particular person’s birthday, cannot be worked out from patterns, so the model fills the gap with something that sounds right.
OpenAI’s 2025 research adds a second reason: models are often scored on accuracy alone, like a multiple-choice exam with no negative marking. Guessing sometimes earns points, while “I don’t know” always earns zero. So models learn to guess.
Guessing vs admitting uncertainty (OpenAI’s numbers, SimpleQA test) gpt-5-thinking-mini o4-mini (older) Said "I don't know" 52% 1% Right answers 22% 24% Wrong answers 26% 75% The older model got 2 points more right answers by guessing, but almost three times as many wrong ones.Key ideaA model that never says “I don’t know” is not more accurate. It is just guessing more.
- 3
A real example: the lawyer and the fake cases
In 2023, in a US case called Mata v. Avianca, a New York lawyer filed a court brief that cited six earlier court decisions, including one called “Varghese v. China Southern Airlines”. None of them existed. ChatGPT had made them up, with realistic names and citation numbers.
The lawyer had actually asked ChatGPT, “Is Varghese a real case?” It said yes and claimed the cases could be found in legal databases like LexisNexis and Westlaw. On 22 June 2023, Judge P. Kevin Castel fined the lawyers and their firm $5,000 and ordered them to write to each real judge who had been falsely named as an author of a fake opinion.
Key ideaAsking the same AI “are you sure?” is not checking. Checking means an independent source.
- 4
How to spot a hallucination
You cannot tell from the tone. Hallucinations are written in the same confident style as correct answers. Instead, be extra careful in the situations where they are most common.
One useful test from Anthropic: ask the same question again in a fresh chat. If the answers disagree on a fact, at least one of them is invented.
- Very specific details: names, dates, numbers, quotes, citations
- Niche topics: your small town, a small company, a recent rule change
- Links: click every one before you trust or share it
- Answers that change when you ask again in a new chat
- Anything with real stakes: health, money, law, exam facts, your resume
- 5
How to reduce hallucinations
Anthropic’s guide lists simple prompt habits that cut down made-up answers. The biggest one is to give the model permission to say it does not know. Next, give it the actual source (a PDF, a web page, your notes) and tell it to answer only from that, quoting the parts it used.
For current facts, use a tool that searches the web and shows sources, like Perplexity or the web search option in ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini, and then open those sources. Anthropic is clear that these methods reduce hallucinations but do not remove them, so always check anything important.
Weak prompt vs strong prompt Weak: What is the minimum attendance rule for my university’s exams? Strong: <rules> [paste the text of your university’s attendance rules here] </rules> Using only the rules above, what is the minimum attendance needed to sit the end-semester exam? Quote the exact line you used. If the rules don’t say, reply "Not stated in the document" instead of guessing.Key ideaGive it the source, let it say “I don’t know”, ask for quotes, then verify.
Straight from the source
The original idea, then the same idea taken apart, then how you use it today.
- 1 · Understand
- They argue hallucinations are not a mysterious glitch. Pretraining cannot learn rare, one-off facts from patterns, and later testing that scores only accuracy rewards a confident guess over an honest “I don’t know”.
- 2 · Break it down
- Patterns vs one-off facts: spelling follows rules a model can learn, but a person’s birthday does not, so the model fills the gap with a guess.
- Exams with no negative marking: if a wrong answer costs nothing, guessing always beats leaving it blank. Models are mostly scored this way.
- Their fix: “Penalize confident errors more than you penalize uncertainty”, and give partial credit for honest uncertainty.
- Not inevitable: a model can avoid many hallucinations by declining to answer when it is unsure.
- 3 · Use it
- Tell the chatbot that “I’m not sure” is an acceptable answer, and value it when you get one. A model that sometimes admits doubt is often more trustworthy than one that always has an answer.
Words to know
- Hallucination
- A confident, plausible-sounding AI answer that is false or made up.
- Grounding
- Giving the model real source material (documents, search results) and asking it to answer from that.
- Citation
- A pointer to where a claim came from, such as a quote, page or link, so you can check it.
- Abstain
- When a model declines to answer and says it does not know, instead of guessing.
- Verification
- Checking a claim against an independent, trusted source, not by asking the same AI again.
Watch
Hand-picked from the people who explain this best. The video loads only when you press play.
A clear whiteboard explainer on the types of hallucinations, their causes and what you can do as a user.
Try it
Go on a hallucination hunt
- 1Open any free chatbot and turn off web search if it has a toggle.
- 2Ask about something niche you know well, such as your school’s founding year, a local shop’s history or a small company you worked at. Note any confident but wrong details.
- 3Ask: “Give me 3 research papers on [a narrow topic from your field], with authors, year and links.” Search each title on Google Scholar and see which exist.
- 4Ask the same question again in a new chat. Do the answers match?
- 5Now repeat with: “If you are not sure, say so. Only list papers you are confident exist.” Compare the results.
Check yourself
Pick an answer to see if you are right, and why.
Done? Keep going
Mark this lesson complete to keep your place. Progress is saved on this device, no login.
Questions people ask
What is an AI hallucination?
It is when an AI chatbot gives a confident, believable answer that is false, such as a fake citation, a wrong statistic or a link that does not exist. OpenAI calls them “plausible but false statements”.
Why does ChatGPT make up fake sources?
It writes by predicting likely text, so a citation that looks right can be generated even if it does not exist. Training that rewards guessing over saying “I don’t know” makes this worse. Always click and check sources.
Can you stop AI from hallucinating completely?
No. You can reduce it a lot by giving the AI your own documents, telling it to answer only from them with quotes, and allowing it to say it does not know. But you still need to verify anything important.
Sources and further reading
- OpenAI: Why language models hallucinate (Sept 2025)
- Anthropic: Reduce hallucinations
- Google Cloud: What are AI hallucinations?
- Mata v. Avianca, Inc., Opinion and Order on Sanctions, S.D.N.Y., 22 June 2023 (Justia)
- Hinshaw & Culbertson: New York lawyer who cited non-existent cases generated by ChatGPT
- Wikipedia: Mata v. Avianca, Inc.
- Perplexity Help Center: What is Perplexity?