A patient with severe memory loss sits across from a neurologist. Asked what he did yesterday, he describes a detailed trip to the grocery store, a conversation with an old friend, and a walk through the park. None of it happened. He was in the hospital the entire day.

The patient is not lying. He believes every word. His brain, faced with gaps it cannot fill from actual memory, constructed a narrative that felt true. Neurologists call this confabulation.

Large language models do the same thing. And understanding that changes everything about how we should design, deploy, and trust them.

The Wrong Word for the Right Problem

The AI industry settled on “hallucination” to describe the phenomenon of models generating false information. The term stuck because it sounds technical and slightly whimsical. It suggests the AI saw something that was not there.

But hallucination is the wrong metaphor. Hallucination implies the perception of something nonexistent. A person who hallucinates sees or hears things that have no external source. The experience feels real, but it originates from distorted sensory processing.

That is not what language models do.

Language models do not perceive. They predict. Given a sequence of tokens, they calculate the most probable next token based on patterns learned during training. When the model lacks sufficient information to ground its prediction in fact, it does not stop. It fills the gap with the most statistically plausible continuation.

This is confabulation. The model constructs coherent, confident, convincing output that happens to be wrong. Not because it perceived something false, but because it papered over an information gap with pattern-matched plausibility.

The distinction matters because it points to different causes and different solutions.

Why Confabulation Is Unfixable at the Model Level

Confabulation is not a bug in transformer architecture. It is a direct consequence of how these systems work.

Language models are trained to predict probable sequences. They learn statistical relationships between tokens across massive datasets. When you prompt a model, it generates output by repeatedly asking: given everything so far, what comes next?

This process has no mechanism for distinguishing fact from plausible fiction. The model does not know things the way humans do. It recognizes patterns. When a prompt asks about something the model encountered frequently during training, those patterns tend to produce accurate output. When a prompt ventures into territory with sparse or conflicting training data, the model still produces output. It just produces output based on weaker patterns.

The model cannot abstain. It cannot say “I don’t have reliable information about this.” It can be trained to produce those phrases, but the underlying architecture still generates them through the same probabilistic process. The model predicts that “I don’t know” is the probable response, not that it actually lacks knowledge.

This is why confabulation cannot be engineered away at the model level. The same mechanism that produces useful output also produces fabricated output. You cannot remove one without fundamentally changing the system.

Every model confabulates. Larger models confabulate less often because they have more patterns to draw from. Better training data reduces confabulation in specific domains. But no architecture change will eliminate it. The system fills gaps because that’s what it does.

The Spectrum of Confabulation

Not all confabulation is equal. Understanding the spectrum helps in designing appropriate safeguards.

Factual confabulation occurs when the model states something verifiably false. It provides an incorrect date, attributes a quote to the wrong person, or cites a nonexistent study. These errors are often detectable through external verification.

Plausible confabulation occurs when the model generates information that sounds reasonable but cannot be verified either way. It describes a process that seems logical but was never documented. It explains a concept using terminology that appears correct but subtly misrepresents the actual meaning. These errors are harder to catch because they do not trigger obvious fact-check failures.

Structural confabulation occurs when the model constructs coherent narratives that blend accurate and fabricated elements. The overall framework might be correct, while specific details are invented. A summary might capture the essence of a document while adding points that were never made. These errors are particularly dangerous because the surrounding accuracy creates false confidence.

Confident confabulation occurs when the model presents uncertain information as if it were certain. It states something definitively when the training data contained conflicting information or no information at all. The model has no internal experience of doubt, so it cannot signal when its output is less reliable.

Mechanisms That Reduce Confabulation

If confabulation cannot be fixed at the model level, it must be addressed at the system level. Several approaches have proven effective.

Retrieval augmentation grounds the model’s output in specific source documents. Rather than relying solely on patterns learned during training, the system retrieves relevant information and includes it in the context. The model then generates output based on the provided sources rather than its general patterns. This dramatically reduces factual confabulation, though the model can still misinterpret or misrepresent the retrieved content.

Citation requirements force the model to attribute claims to specific sources. When the model must point to the source of information, confabulated claims become more visible. The model might still generate a citation that does not support the claim, but this creates a verifiable checkpoint that human reviewers or automated systems can audit.

Constrained generation limits the model’s output to predefined options or formats. When the system must select from a fixed set of responses rather than generating free text, confabulation decreases because the model cannot invent plausible-sounding alternatives. This trades flexibility for reliability.

Multi-step verification uses separate model calls or external systems to check the generated output. One model generates a response. Another evaluates whether the response is supported by available evidence. A third might check for internal consistency. Each step reduces the probability that confabulated content reaches the user.

Confidence calibration attempts to align the model’s expressed certainty with actual reliability. This remains an active research area. The goal is systems that say “I’m not sure about this” when their output is likely to be wrong. Current approaches show promise but are far from solved.

Human-in-the-loop workflows position human judgment at critical decision points. The model generates drafts or suggestions. Humans verify accuracy before the output is used. This acknowledges that confabulation will occur and embeds verification into the process rather than relying on the model to be reliable.

You could also just go with it! Nothing wrong with a little serendipity.

Why Terminology Matters

Calling this phenomenon confabulation rather than hallucination is not pedantic. It shapes how people think about the problem.

Hallucination suggests a perceptual error, something going wrong in how the system sees the world. This framing implies the solution is better perception, more accurate sensing, and clearer vision. It points toward fixing the model.

Confabulation suggests a gap-filling behavior, something the system does when it lacks sufficient information. This framing implies that the solution is to provide better information, to constrain the gaps the system must fill, or to verify output before use. It points toward fixing the system around the model.

The hallucination framing has led organizations to wait for better models that will not hallucinate. They delay deployment until the problem is “fixed.” They treat false output as a temporary limitation that will be solved by scaling.

The confabulation framing leads organizations to design for the reality that models will always fill gaps with plausible patterns. They build verification systems. They constrain generation where reliability matters. They position human judgment appropriately. They deploy with a clear understanding of what the system reliably does and does not do.

Designing for Confabulation

Every system built on language models will confabulate. The question is not how to prevent it but how to design around it.

High-stakes applications require verification layers. Legal research, medical information, financial analysis, and any domain where false information causes harm must include mechanisms that catch confabulation before it reaches decisions. The model is a draft generator, not a source of truth.

User interfaces should signal uncertainty appropriately. When a model expresses confidence it has not earned, users over-trust the output. Interfaces that communicate “this may contain errors” or highlight unverified claims help users appropriately calibrate their trust.

Workflows should position model output as input to human judgment, not a replacement for it. The model accelerates work by generating starting points. Humans verify, refine, and approve. This division of labor leverages what models do well while protecting against what they do poorly.

Monitoring systems should track confabulation rates over time. When a model is used in production, some percentage of its output will be wrong. Measuring that percentage, identifying patterns in failure modes, and feeding corrections back into the system creates continuous improvement.

The Path Forward

Language models are extraordinarily capable. They have transformed what is possible in human-computer interaction. They will continue to improve.

But they will also continue to confabulate. The architecture that makes them powerful is the same architecture that makes them unreliable. Pattern prediction cannot distinguish fact from plausible fiction without external grounding. This is why new frameworks such as Nomotic AI are introduced to help.

Organizations that understand this build systems that work. They treat models as powerful tools with known limitations. They design verification into workflows. They constrain generation where reliability matters. They communicate uncertainty to users.

Organizations that wait for models that do not confabulate will wait indefinitely. The physics of these systems does not support that outcome.

The question is not whether AI confabulates. It does. The question is whether we design around that reality or pretend it will disappear. The terminology we use shapes the path we take.

Confabulation is the right word. Using it correctly is the first step toward building AI systems we can actually trust.

---

If you find this content valuable, please share it with your network.

Follow me for daily insights.

Schedule a free call to start your AI Transformation.

Book me to speak at your next event.

Chris Hood is an AI strategist and author of the #1 Amazon Best Seller Infailible and Customer Transformation, and has been recognized as one of the Top 40 Global Gurus for Customer Experience. His latest book, Unmapping Customer Journeys, will be published in 2026.