The Illusion of Accuracy: AI Hallucinations and User Trust

In this month technology series, we’ll dive into the lesser-discussed emotional dimensions of artificial intelligence - how it can influence mental health, contribute to feelings of loneliness, and even intensify social isolation. As AI tools become more embedded in our daily lives, understanding their psychological impact is just as important as grasping their technical capabilities. To begin this journey, let’s explore a foundational concept: AI hallucination.

Put simply, AI hallucination happens when an AI makes things up. It might give wrong answers, invent fake facts, or describe things that don’t exist - like saying the Eiffel Tower is in Berlin or generating an image of a cat with three eyes. These mistakes aren’t intentional; they occur because the AI is trying to be helpful and sound confident, even when it doesn’t fully understand the question or lacks accurate information. It’s a bit like someone guessing with great certainty - and getting it completely wrong. 

From a technical perspective, it refers to a phenomenon where generative models - such as large language models (LLMs) or computer vision systems - produce outputs that are inaccurate, illogical, or entirely fabricated. These errors often stem from the model misreading context, overgeneralizing patterns, or relying on training data that’s incomplete, outdated, or biased. Despite sounding fluent and convincing, the AI may be constructing responses that have no basis in reality.

AI hallucination becomes especially dangerous when used in critical areas like healthcare, law, and finance, where a single false output can lead to serious consequences. In medicine, an incorrect diagnosis or imagined symptom could result in unnecessary treatments or missed care—as seen when a diagnostic AI misclassified a benign mole as malignant, prompting unwarranted biopsies. In legal settings, fabricated citations can derail proceedings; in 2023, two New York lawyers were sanctioned after submitting a brief generated by ChatGPT that cited six entirely fictitious cases. In finance, hallucinated investment advice or misrepresented mortgage terms could trigger compliance violations. These hallucinations come in various forms—factual, logical, visual, temporal, and instructional—each posing unique risks depending on the domain.

Beyond technical errors, AI hallucinations present deeper cognitive and societal risks. Because these outputs often sound fluent and authoritative, they can mislead users and erode trust in systems designed to inform. In education, a chatbot might confidently assert that “a triangle has four sides,” undermining basic reasoning. In journalism, hallucinated quotes or sources can distort reporting. A striking example occurred when Google’s Bard falsely claimed the James Webb Space Telescope had captured the first image of an exoplanet—an error that was widely shared before being corrected. Research from Princeton highlights a troubling trend: some models increasingly prioritize user satisfaction over factual accuracy, producing what scholars call “machine bullshit”—plausible-sounding but fundamentally false responses. When such hallucinations are weaponized to fabricate history or manipulate opinion, they become potent tools of disinformation, threatening not just truth but the foundations of informed society.

In mental health applications, mitigating AI hallucinations is especially vital due to the emotional sensitivity and clinical risks involved. Tools like Woebot and Wysa now anchor their responses in validated therapeutic frameworks such as CBT protocols and DSM-5 criteria to avoid speculative or misleading advice. Some platforms incorporate clinician oversight to vet AI-generated assessments, particularly in suicide risk prediction, where false positives can trigger unnecessary interventions—as seen in early trials where AI flagged low-risk users for emergency outreach. Advanced systems also use multimodal validation - cross-checking data from speech, facial expressions, and EEG signals - to reduce errors. In India, where linguistic diversity and cultural nuance shape mental health care, region-specific fine-tuning helps prevent hallucinations rooted in Western - centric assumptions. For example, AI tools trained on Hindi and Tamil idioms have shown improved accuracy in interpreting emotional distress compared to models trained solely on English-language data.

Policy frameworks are also evolving to mandate hallucination safeguards. The EU AI Act classifies mental health AI tools as “high-risk,” requiring rigorous testing, explainability, and post-deployment monitoring. India’s Draft Digital Health Bill proposes audit trails and real-time flagging of unverified claims in mental health apps—a response to incidents where AI-generated advice contradicted local clinical guidelines. Under GDPR, hallucinated outputs that misrepresent a person’s mental health status may violate data accuracy and profiling rights, prompting calls for hallucination-aware consent protocols. Global governance bodies are pushing for standardized benchmarks, with the 2025 AI Hallucination Report flagging models with error rates exceeding 25%—a red alert for psychiatric deployment. As AI systems become more embedded in public infrastructure, hallucination mitigation must evolve into a cornerstone of ethical design, especially in culturally complex contexts like India. 

*******************
************ 

Curious how digital transformation is changing the industry? Tap here to explore my latest blogs..