Hallucinations Undermine Trust; Metacognition Is a Way Forward
gmays
16 points
5 comments
May 08, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 83.1ms across 8,303 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- Hallucination Is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models drob518 · 12 pts · May 04, 2026 · 54% similar
- Researchers who use hallucinated references to face ArXiv ban gnabgib · 17 pts · May 19, 2026 · 53% similar
- Towards Trust in Emacs eshelyaron · 20 pts · April 15, 2026 · 50% similar
- Claude Opus 4.6 accuracy on BridgeBench hallucination test drops from 83% to 68% bratao · 56 pts · April 12, 2026 · 47% similar
- New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references gjuggler · 431 pts · May 14, 2026 · 47% similar
Discussion Highlights (3 comments)
ryandvm
Unproductive tangent: Why do we call it "hallucinationing" instead of "bullshitting" when that is so clearly what it is? If I'm talking to a guy that says, "I have a really fast metabolism, that's why I can eat whatever I want", he's not hallucinating - he's full of shit.
holtkam2
IDK if the author's 'metacognition' needs to be a feature of the LLM itself. I could imagine a harness that 1) reads LLM output 2) uses a research sub-agent to attempt to verify any factual claims 2) rephrase the main agent's output such that it conveys uncertainty if the factual claim cannot be independently verified
spacebacon
Related: https://github.com/space-bacon/SRT This repository empirically proves computational semiotics. The only “metacognitive” (2nd order) and metapragmatic (3rd order) model I’m aware of.