Levart_Photographer on Unsplash
Throw AI a vague question, and what you'll get back will likely sound plausible enough to be true, even if the question isn't meant to have a real answer. But from the response you get back, it might seem even harder to believe that AI could be making things up, especially with how confident it sounds. So, why does this happen? Why do AI models hallucinate so much to the point you almost end up trusting what they say?
If you’ve ever wondered why a system that's been fed massive amounts of data can still make things up, the short version is this: AI is optimized to produce a good-sounding continuation, not to verify reality. The deeper answer involves how the model is trained, what it can and can’t “know” at the moment it responds, and how product design choices shape its behavior.
The Training Objective Rewards Plausible Guessing
Most modern language models are trained with a next-token prediction objective, commonly framed as maximum likelihood estimation. In practice, that means the model is rewarded for generating the most probable continuation of text given its training patterns, not for pausing to confirm whether a statement is factually grounded. When the prompt is ambiguous or the answer is uncertain, the optimization pressure still pushes the model to produce something fluent.
OpenAI’s recent work, for example, argues that standard training and evaluation setups can actively incentivize guessing over admitting uncertainty. They argue to think of it this way: you're more likely to choose a random answer on a multiple-choice test than to leave it completely blank, since you're at least guaranteed a 1-in-4 (or however many options you have) chance that you'd be correct. In the same way, an AI model that fills in gaps will look stronger than one that says “I don’t know,” even if the answer is wrong. That’s why hallucinations can persist even as models become more capable in other ways.
Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and similar tuning methods can also create a subtle tradeoff. You want the assistant to be helpful, direct, and well-structured; users often prefer confident, complete responses. When “helpfulness” is overweighted relative to calibrated uncertainty, the model can learn to present a best guess as a clean narrative rather than surfacing doubt or asking for constraints, which means the result might look polished but may be wholly untrue.
Data Gaps, Context Limits, and Distribution Shifts
Even with huge training datasets, coverage is uneven, and models don’t have universal access to up-to-date facts. Training data can be incomplete, conflicting, or biased toward what’s common rather than what’s correct, and the model can’t reliably tell you which source in its training set supported a particular claim. When you ask a niche question, you’re often pushing it into a low-evidence zone where fluent synthesis is easier than accurate retrieval.
Context limitations matter too, because the model only conditions on what’s in the current prompt and what it can fit in its context window. If key details are missing, it may “resolve” ambiguity by selecting a plausible interpretation, then continue as if that interpretation was20 Most Downloaded Apps Everyone Should Know confirmed. You’ll see this when you give partial names, vague dates, or underspecified requirements, especially in technical or legal domains where small details change the correct answer.
Hallucinations also show up under distribution shift, meaning the prompt is meaningfully different from what the model saw during training. New product names, emerging research, local policies, or internal company processes can all fall outside the training distribution, and the model may respond with something that resembles what it’s seen before rather than what’s actually true today. Academic surveys consistently flag this “out-of-domain” pressure as a major contributor to unfaithful or fabricated outputs.
How Developers and Users Can Reduce Hallucinations
To mitigate this, grounding the model in external sources is one of the most practical strategies, especially for factual tasks. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems fetch relevant documents and condition the model on that text, which can reduce unsupported claims when the retrieved material is high quality and actually answers the question. Research and engineering reports on RAG repeatedly highlight improvements in factuality, while also noting that weak retrieval can still lead to confident errors.
Evaluation design is another lever that’s easy to overlook. If you only score a model on whether it outputs an answer, you’ll keep rewarding bluffing behavior; if you score it on calibrated uncertainty, citation quality, and faithfulness to provided sources, you can shift incentives toward saying less when knowledge is vague. OpenAI’s analysis explicitly calls out the need to reform training and evaluation signals so models aren’t punished for expressing uncertainty.
You can also change your own workflow to make hallucinations less costly. Ask for sources, request that the model explicitly separate hard facts from what it's inferring on its own, and treat any crisp-sounding claim as untrusted until you verify it yourself, especially when the stakes are high. When accuracy matters, the safest pattern is to use the model for drafting, outlining, or exploring options, then confirm details against primary references. It should always be a shared responsibility between you and the model, no matter what you're asking it to generate.
