Cited by 59Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMisinformation and Its ImpactsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Artificial Hallucinations by Google Bard: Think Before You Leap

Open access
Kumar, Mukesh, Mani, Utsav Anand, Tripathi, Pranjal, Saalim, Mohd, Roy, Sneha·2023·Cureus

Abstract

One of the critical challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI) tools like Google Bard (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States) is the potential for "artificial hallucinations." These refer to instances where an AI chatbot generates fictional, erroneous, or unsubstantiated information in response to queries. In research, such inaccuracies can lead to the propagation of misinformation and undermine the credibility of scientific literature. The experience presented here highlights the importance of cross-checking the information provided by AI tools with reliable sources and maintaining a cautious approach when utilizing these tools in research writing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7759/cureus.43313

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hallucinations have been encountered in various domains, including the content itself and the cited references, including their bibliographic identifiers.

    “Hallucinations have been encountered in various domains, including the content itself and the cited references, including their bibliographic identifiers [12,27-29].”

    From Reference Hallucination Score for Medical Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: Development and Usability Study (2024) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Editorial reports that Bard gave an incorrect answer about FAST-MI and that its article citation was “completely made up,” supporting hallucinations in both content and references. Our copy does not say whether the fabricated citation included a bibliographic identifier or whether one was incorrect. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI chatbots encounter a hallucination/fabrication phenomenon that was recognized early in their use in health care.

    “Additionally, AI chatbots encounter a hallucination/fabrication phenomenon recognized early in their use in health care.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kumar, M., Mani, U. A., Tripathi, P., Saalim, M., & Roy, S.
Affiliations
King George's Medical University (IN)
Corresponding author
Mani, Utsav Anand
Venue
Cureus
Published
2023-08-10
Volume
15
Issue
8
Pages
e43313-e43313
ISSN
2168-8184 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385766819
Cited by
59
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 3
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Cureus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
Google Bard, large language models, AI chatbots, misinformation, academic writing, source verification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review