The paper investigates why large language models (LLMs) produce hallucinations—outputs that are fabricated, unverifiable, or contradictory to source material—and argues that these hallucinations have philosophical implications for machine consciousness. It reviews known causes such as source‑target divergence, training‑inference discrepancies, and overfitting, and presents two empirical studies: one showing that higher temperature settings in GPT models yield plausible but incorrect answers, while lower temperatures produce accurate ones; and another demonstrating that an encoder‑only model trained on encyclopedic data answers factually without embellishment, suggesting hallucinations arise from exposure to subjective, socially diverse data rather than cognitive ability. Drawing on Turing, Searle’s Chinese Room, the frame problem, and cybernetic theory, the authors contend that a model’s self‑reports of emotion or sentience fall within the definition of hallucination, implying that any future machine consciousness may remain epistemically inaccessible because it would be indistinguishable from an advanced hallucination.
By Kristina \v{S}ekrst
arXiv:2609.35860v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Sampling based consistency is widely used for hallucination detection, yet aggregate performance can conceal systematic differences in which errors a...
By Pranav Darshan, Pranav A, Sravan Karthick T, Minal Moharir, Ivan P. Yamshchikov
arXiv:2606. 07521v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This study investigates the phenomenon of hallucinations in domain-adapted Large Language Models (LLMs), focusing on the fine-tuning of the Llama-2 model with the Lamini dataset.
By Sanchita Porwal, Sai Prasath S, Xingjian Bi, Madelyn Scandlen
The paper examines a specific type of hallucination in large language models caused by spurious correlations—unintended, statistically prominent associations in training data such as surnames linked to nationalities. These hallucinations are confidently produced, persist regardless of model scaling or refusal fine‑tuning, and evade existing detection methods like confidence filtering and inner‑state probing. The authors use controlled synthetic experiments and evaluations on both open‑source and proprietary LLMs, including GPT‑5, to demonstrate the failure of current detection techniques and provide a theoretical explanation for why statistical biases undermine confidence‑based approaches.
By Shaowen Wang, Yiqi Dong, Ruinian Chang, Tansheng Zhu, Yuebo Sun, Kaifeng Lyu, Jian Li
arXiv:2608.01017v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Large language models can answer a medical question correctly and still abandon that answer when a user pushes back. We study this failure as...
By Kaike Ping, Buse \c{C}ar{\i}k, Caleb Wohn, Xiaohan Ding, Tongshuai Wang, Eugenia Rho
arXiv:2605. 31483v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Despite Bengali being the sixth most spoken language in the world, no prior work has systematically evaluated hallucination in large language models (LLMs) for Bengali.
By Shefayat E Shams Adib, Ahmed Alfey Sani, Ekramul Alam Esham, Ajwad Abrar, Ishmam Tashdeed, Md Taukir Azam Chowdhury