A hallucination is when an AI system generates output that sounds plausible but is wrong, unsupported, or made up.
Hallucinations matter because they break trust. If you use a model for search, summarization, coding help, or customer support, a confident but false answer can mislead users, create bugs, or spread bad information.
In practice, teams care about hallucinations whenever they need factual accuracy, source grounding, or reliable behavior. For creative writing, they may be less of a problem; for legal, medical, financial, or operational use, they are a major risk.
Large language models predict the next token based on patterns in training data and the current prompt. That means they are optimized to produce likely text, not to “know” truth in a human sense.
When the model lacks enough evidence, or when the prompt encourages it to fill gaps, it may still produce a fluent answer. That answer can look authoritative even when it is unsupported. This is especially common when the model is asked for obscure facts, exact citations, or details beyond its context window.
Researchers and practitioners use “hallucination” as a broad term, but the exact definition is not perfectly settled. Some use it for any factual error; others reserve it for confident, ungrounded generation. The common idea is the same: the output is not reliably tied to reality or the provided source material.
Mitigations usually involve grounding the model in retrieved documents, constraining it to answer only from approved sources, using tools for verification, or adding human review for high-stakes tasks.
User: “Who wrote The Great Gatsby and what year was it published?”
Hallucinated answer: “It was written by Ernest Hemingway and published in 1925.”
This sounds confident, but it is wrong. The correct answer is F. Scott Fitzgerald, 1925.