Systems that answer
A fluent, confident claim with nothing behind it — and the reason it is dangerous is that it is indistinguishable from a correct answer at the moment it is read.
Also called Confabulation · Галлюцинация
It is not a bug that will be fixed, and treating it as one leads to the wrong architecture. Generating plausible continuations is what these systems do; producing a plausible continuation when the material is absent is the same behaviour, working as designed. The engineering question is therefore not how to stop it but where to put the boundary that catches it.
The commercially expensive cases are narrow and predictable. Prices, delivery times, eligibility, refund terms and anything with a number in it — invented confidently, at scale, in writing, to customers who will act on it. Nobody is harmed by a chatbot being vague about company values.
Which is why the answer is structural rather than tonal. Retrieval that can return nothing, a refusal path that fires when it does, a deterministic layer holding a veto over anything with a price in it, and an adversarial test set that keeps trying to make it invent. Prompting a model to be careful is not one of the controls; it is a request.
Instructions like “only answer from the provided context” and “say you don’t know if unsure” reduce the frequency and do not change the class of failure, because the model has no reliable access to whether it knows. Anything the business would be held to needs a check outside the model — a rule, a lookup, a required source — and the check has to be able to block the reply.
Knowing the definition is not the same as being able to check the figure. These are the procedures that do the second thing.
- Accepting an automated agent
- “The agent is trained on your data and ready to go live.” · 45 minutes, 6 questions.
The definitions are the easy part. Whether the figure on your dashboard was computed this way is a different question, and usually the more expensive one.