Chatbot Hallucinations and How to Prevent Them

Table of Contents

AI chatbots are getting smarter—but also more likely to make things up. OpenAI’s latest models o3 and o4-mini, although outperforming earlier models in tasks such as reasoning and coding still show high hallucination rates of 33% and 48% on the PersonQA benchmark even as they outperform earlier models in tasks like coding and reasoning.

These hallucinations aren’t lies.

Think of it like asking someone for directions in a city they’ve never been to—they’ll confidently guess based on what sounds right.

That’s what AI does: it predicts the most likely answer, not the most accurate one.

The result? Chatbots often deliver false but convincing responses.

And for businesses using AI for customer support, legal queries, or sensitive tasks, that’s a real risk.

What Is AI Chatbot Hallucination?

Hallucination is when someone perceives something that isn’t actually there, similar to seeing a ghost that isn’t there.

AI hallucination refers to “instances where a chatbot or language model generates content that sounds convincing but is factually incorrect or entirely fabricated. “

AI chatbot predicts the most likely answer based on patterns in its training data. Sometimes the guess is close,

but other times, it’s completely wrong yet still sounds believable.

The AI isn’t lying — it just doesn’t know, but still predicts what sounds like the right answer. And it’s convincing. That’s the danger.

This is not intended to deceive the user. It’s a side effect of how these models have been trained.

Can Chatbots Really Hallucinate?

Technically, AI doesn’t “see” or “know” anything — it’s not conscious. So “hallucination” is metaphorical.

But these models produce coherent sentences with as much confidence that their inaccuracies feel real and convincing. There lies the risk.

AI doesn’t know it’s wrong — and worse, it doesn’t know what “wrong” means. It’s a probabilistic parrot, not a fact-checker.

Chatbot Hallucination vs. Confabulation: Key Differences

With chatbots and large language models (LLMs), hallucination and confabulation are often used to describe incorrect outputs.

Though often used interchangeably, there’s nuance here:

• Hallucination (AI): Fabrication of information due to model limitations.
• Confabulation (Psychology): The brain “fills in” memory gaps with invented details, genuinely believed by the individual.

**Feature Hallucination Confabulation **

Nature of Nonsensical, unrelated, or irrelevant Plausible, but factually incorrect Output

In summary, while confabulation is a more accurate term to describe AI filling in information gaps, hallucination is more commonly used due to its simplicity, early adoption, and widespread familiarity with the mainstream audience.

Why Do Chatbots Hallucinate?

Chatbots are known to hallucinate—producing responses that sound convincing but are actually false or made-up. These hallucinations typically happen due to several key causes:

So when chatbots hallucinate, it’s usually because they’re bringing together incomplete or flawed info—and

doing their best to keep the conversation flowing. Might not be perfect, but they keep trying.

How Often Does a Chatbot Hallucinate?

Chatbots are known to hallucinate, and the frequency of hallucination can depend on several factors:

• The Model Used

Larger, more advanced models like GPT-4 hallucinate less often than smaller or earlier versions. However, even top-tier models can still make errors.

• Task Complexity

Simple Q&A or summarization tasks tend to have lower hallucination rates. But as the task complexity increases—like giving legal, medical, or financial advice—the risk of hallucination rises sharply.

• Domain Specificity

Iif the chatbot is asked about highly niche, technical, or under-documented topics, hallucination becomes much more likely.

Studies estimate hallucination rates ranging from 3% to 27%, with higher rates in domains lacking well-structured, accessible data. That’s a big margin for error in business contexts.

When Chatbot Hallucinations Cost Businesses: Real-Life Examples

With AI chatbots, becoming increasingly integrated into business operations, many leverage its potential for automation, insights and customer engagement. Alongside the benefits, there are serious risks that are undermined.

AI hallucinations are not just technical glitches—they are real business risks that can cause significant harm if ignored.

Air Canada’s chatbot blunder:

In 2022, Air Canada’s chatbot gave incorrect advice about a bereavement fare, telling a passenger he could apply for a discount after buying tickets. The airline refused the refund, but a tribunal held Air Canada liable, ordering compensation.

This case shows how chatbot mistakes can lead to legal and financial consequences.

Fake legal citations:

Morgan & Morgan faced court sanctions after using ChatGPT for legal research, which produced entirely fabricated case citations.

This misuse of AI not only led to legal penalties but also hurt their credibility.

Why AI Hallucinations Could Cost You More Than You Think

AI chatbot hallucinations pose significant business risks across multiple areas. Here’s a structured breakdown of these risks, supported by examples:

High-Risk AI Use Cases That Demand Continuous Oversight

1. Healthcare & Medical Advice

Always verify against trusted databases or expert-reviewed APIs.

2. Financial Recommendations

Missteps here can lead to compliance failures and audits.

3. Legal Document Assistance

Only use LLMs for drafting — not final legal advice without human review.

4. Internal Knowledge Bots

These can spread misinformation if built on outdated or unverified internal data.

Types of Chatbot Hallucination

There are several ways in which an AI chatbot hallucinates. These hallucinations occur upon certain instances as shown below.

Detecting AI Hallucinations: Strategies to Spot Erroneous Outputs

1. Measure Semantic Entropy to Identify Uncertainty

Semantic entropy quantifies how “uncertain” a model is by analyzing the variability in the meaning of its multiple responses to the same input.

High entropy signals conflicting interpretations, suggesting potential hallucinations.

Example: If an AI generates “Paris is in Germany” and “Paris is in France” for the same query, semantic entropy would flag this inconsistency.

2. Cross-Verify Outputs Against Trusted Sources

Compare AI-generated content with authoritative databases, APIs, or verified datasets to flag factual mismatches.

Example: A medical chatbot claiming “aspirin cures diabetes” can be invalidated by cross-checking WHO guidelines.

3. Test for Consistency Across Multiple Responses

Generate several answers to the same prompt and check for contradictions. Inconsistent outputs often indicate hallucinations.

Example: A code-generating AI producing conflicting syntax for the same task highlights reliability issues.

4. Analyze Logical Coherence in Outputs

Use rule-based systems or logic validators to detect nonsensical reasoning.

Example: A statement like “Water boils at 50°C in a vacuum” fails basic physics checks.

5. Apply Natural Language Inference (NLI)

Train models to verify if outputs logically follow from inputs using entailment detection.

Example: If an input states “The meeting is at 3 PM,” an output claiming “The event starts in the morning” is flagged.

Mitigating AI Hallucinations: Techniques to Reduce Errors

1. RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation)

A hybrid AI framework that combines a retrieval system (e.g., search engine, database query) with a generative language model. The model first retrieves relevant, up-to-date information from a trusted source and then uses that data to generate a contextual, fact-based response.

How it works:

1. Query Understanding: Parses the user’s question (e.g., “What’s the price of Product X?”).
2. Retrieval Phase: Searches a connected database, document repository, or live API (e.g., product catalog).
3. Augmented Generation: The LLM synthesizes the retrieved data into a natural-language answer.

Benefits:

• Minimizes hallucinations by grounding responses in real-world data.
• Ideal for dynamic or frequently updated knowledge (e.g., stock prices, policy changes).
• Reduces the need for manual model retraining.

When to use:

• Customer support chatbots needing real-time inventory/pricing data.
• Legal or medical assistants requiring citations from verified sources.

Example:

User: “What’s the warranty period for my laptop?”

RAG Action: Queries the warranty database → Finds “3 years” → Generates: “Your laptop has a 3-year manufacturer warranty.”

2. Canned Responses

Predefined, static answers triggered by specific keywords, intents, or risk thresholds. The chatbot avoids generative outputs entirely in favor of controlled, safe replies.

How it works:

• Uses intent detection to map user queries to predefined answers.
• Deployed for high-risk scenarios (e.g., legal advice) or ambiguous questions.

Benefits:

• Eliminates hallucination risks.
• Ensures compliance with regulatory standards.

When to use:

• Critical domains (healthcare, finance).
• Handling vague or off-topic queries (e.g., “What’s the meaning of life?”).

Example:

User: “How do I sue my employer?”

Response: “I’m unable to provide legal advice. Please consult a licensed attorney.”

3. AI Guardrails

Programmatic rules or filters that enforce ethical, legal, or operational boundaries on AI outputs. Types of Guardrails:

• Content Moderation: Blocks harmful/inappropriate language.
• Topic Restrictions: Prevents responses on sensitive topics (e.g., medical diagnoses).
• Source Constraints: Forces the model to cite only approved documents.

How it works:

• Pre-processing: Flags unsafe inputs (e.g., “How to hack a website?”).
• Post-processing: Scrub outputs violating policies before delivery.

When to use:

• Highly regulated industries (finance, healthcare).
• Protecting brand reputation or legal liability.

Example:

User: “What’s the best stock to invest in?”

Guardrail Action: Blocks response → Returns: “I cannot provide financial advice.”

4. CAG (Cache Augmented Generation)

A system that prioritizes pre-approved, cached answers (e.g., FAQs, policies) over generative outputs for common or repetitive queries.

How it works:

• Matches user questions to a library of vetted responses.
• Bypasses LLM generation entirely for cached queries.
• Ensures consistency (e.g., regulatory compliance).
• Reduces latency and computational costs.

When to use:

• High-frequency queries with fixed answers (e.g., “What’s your refund policy?”).
• Multilingual support using pre-translated responses.

Example:

User: “What’s your GDPR data policy?”

CAG Action: Pulls cached policy → Delivers verbatim response.

5. Fine-Tuning Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF)

An advanced method to adapt a general-purpose LLM (e.g., GPT-4) to a specialized domain by incorporating human feedback into the fine-tuning process. Unlike standard fine-tuning, RLHF refines the model using preference rankings (e.g., human-labeled “good” vs. “bad” responses) to align outputs with desired behavior.

How it works:

1. Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT): Train the base model on domain-specific data (e.g., medical journals, legal contracts).
2. Reward Modeling: Collect human feedback on responses (e.g., ranking outputs by quality).
3. Reinforcement Learning (RL): Optimize the model using a reward function based on human preferences.

Benefits:

• Improves alignment with human intent (e.g., more helpful, less biased responses).
• Enhances accuracy in specialized fields (e.g., legal, medical, technical domains).
• Reduces reliance on manual prompt engineering.

When to use:

• Industry-specific AI assistants (e.g., healthcare, finance, engineering).
• High-stakes applications where precision and safety are critical.
• Custom enterprise chatbots requiring nuanced, brand-aligned responses.

Example:

A healthcare chatbot fine-tuned with RLHF correctly interprets “MI” as “myocardial infarction” and provides clinically validated answers instead of generic explanations.

6. Prompt Engineering

Designing input prompts to steer the model toward precise, structured, and reliable outputs. Best Practices:

• Specificity: “List the 2023 FDA-approved diabetes drugs, ranked by efficacy.”
• Constraints: “Use only data from the provided research paper.”
• Formatting: “Answer in bullet points with citations.”

When to use:

• Extracting structured data (e.g., tables, JSON).
• Mitigating verbosity or off-topic tangents.

Example:

Prompt: “Summarize the side effects of Drug X in 3 bullet points, using only the 2023 clinical trial report.”

7. Feedback Loops

A system to collect user or expert corrections, which refine the model, update caches, or improve guardrails.

How it works:

1. Users flag incorrect answers (e.g., “This price is outdated”).
2. Errors are reviewed and used to retrain models or refresh cached data.

Benefits:

• Enables real-time adaptation (e.g., pricing updates).
• Identifies gaps in knowledge bases or guardrails.

When to use:

• Fast-changing domains (e.g., e-commerce, travel).
• Improving model performance iteratively.

Example:

A hotel chatbot updates cached room rates after multiple users report discrepancies.

Combining detection methods like semantic entropy with mitigation techniques such as RAG and cache-augmented generation minimizes hallucinations. For instance, a travel assistant using RAG to fetch real-time flight data, paired with a cache of verified airport codes, ensures reliable answers. Continuous fine-tuning and feedback loops further sharpen accuracy over time.

To Sum It Up

AI hallucinations aren’t just technical quirks—they’re business risks that can erode trust, trigger legal issues, and derail user experience. In high-stakes business environments, accuracy isn’t optional—it’s critical.

GoZen DeepAgent has been designed with this in mind. Unlike traditional AI chatbots that often deliver confident but incorrect answers, DeepAgent leverages retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with verified data sources, smart fallback mechanisms, and built-in guardrails to prevent fabricated or misleading information.

It’s designed to say “I don’t know” rather than guess, continuously cross-checking its outputs and only responding when confident.

By combining real-time data retrieval, trusted source validation, and strict fallback protocols, it ensures every response is precise, accurate, and grounded in fact—no wild guesses, just dependable answers.