// the mechanism
An LLM generates by predicting the next likely token, not by checking a fact store. It's producing what sounds right. For anything with no learnable pattern — an arbitrary date, a specific citation — a confident, wrong answer is statistically almost unavoidable.
The exam analogy
Picture a multiple-choice exam. A blank scores zero. A wrong guess scores zero. But a lucky guess scores one. The rational move is to always guess, never leave it blank. We trained the model the exact same way.
It's baked into training
OpenAI's 2025 analysis puts it plainly: hallucinations persist because models are "optimized to be good test-takers, and guessing when uncertain improves test performance." Most benchmarks grade right-or-wrong with no credit for admitting uncertainty — so saying "I'm not sure" scores the same as a lie. Honesty is penalized.
What reduces it
You can lower the rate — you can't delete it:
But it never fully goes away. Grounding helps a lot, yet retrieved context can still be misread or ignored — it's baked into predicting the next word. So trust, but verify: treat a confident answer as a claim, not a fact.
Sources: OpenAI — Why language models hallucinate (2025) · Kalai et al. (arXiv 2509.04664) · grounding with RAG
One concept a week. Free.
The deeper, copy-paste version of each ToolCall short — in your inbox.
// total: 0.00 · spam: void · unsubscribe: one click
