When Believable Sounds Right: The Hidden Roots of AI Error

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

New research reveals that the mistakes made by artificial intelligence aren’t simply bugs, but stem from a human tendency to prioritize compelling narratives over verifiable facts.

This review examines how interactions between humans and large language models co-construct epistemic errors driven by plausibility bias and inadequate evaluation metrics.

Despite increasing reliance on large language models as reasoning partners, current evaluation metrics often overlook how their errors are shaped by human interpretation. This study, ‘Plausibility as Failure: How LLMs and Humans Co-Construct Epistemic Error’, investigates the relational dynamics of failure in human-AI interaction, revealing that errors shift from purely predictive to hermeneutic forms masked by linguistic fluency. Our findings demonstrate that humans frequently prioritize plausibility and surface-level coherence over factual accuracy, effectively co-constructing error through interpretive shortcuts. If error isn’t solely a property of the model, but a product of the interaction, how can we design both LLMs and evaluation frameworks to foster more trustworthy epistemic partnerships?

The Illusion of Understanding: Superficial Fluency in Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate a remarkable capacity for generating text that mimics human writing, often characterized by grammatical correctness and stylistic fluency. This proficiency, however, frequently creates an illusion of understanding, as the models operate by identifying statistical patterns in vast datasets rather than possessing genuine comprehension of the information they process. While an LLM can construct a logically sound and articulate response, it may lack a firm basis in factual accuracy, readily generating plausible-sounding statements that are demonstrably false or lack real-world grounding. The models excel at surface-level coherence, skillfully assembling words and phrases, but struggle with deeper semantic understanding and the critical evaluation of information-a disconnect that poses significant challenges for applications requiring reliability and truthfulness.

Current methods for assessing Large Language Models frequently prioritize predictive metrics – evaluating how well a model anticipates the next word in a sequence – but these approaches offer a limited view of true comprehension. While a model might convincingly mimic understanding by generating grammatically correct and contextually relevant text, these metrics fail to probe whether the model possesses genuine knowledge or can reason accurately. This emphasis on surface-level correctness obscures critical errors; a model can achieve a high score on predictive tasks while simultaneously producing outputs that are factually incorrect, logically inconsistent, or entirely nonsensical. Consequently, reliance on these traditional evaluations creates a deceptive picture of capability, suggesting a level of understanding that doesn’t align with the model’s actual limitations and potentially masking substantial flaws in its reasoning processes.

The compelling fluency of large language models masks a critical vulnerability: the generation of outputs that, while grammatically sound and convincingly presented, may be factually incorrect or logically flawed. Research indicates this isn’t simply a matter of occasional errors, but a systemic issue stemming from the models’ reliance on statistical patterns rather than genuine understanding. This susceptibility is further compounded when humans assess the outputs, as evaluations frequently prioritize stylistic coherence and believability over verifiable accuracy; a polished presentation can readily overshadow substantive errors. Consequently, even expert reviewers can be misled by plausible-sounding falsehoods, highlighting the danger of equating linguistic fluency with true intelligence and the need for more robust evaluation metrics that prioritize factual grounding.

Hermeneutic Challenges: The Interpretation of Machine-Generated Text

Hermeneutic error, as distinct from simple factual inaccuracy, concerns errors that emerge during the interpretation of text, not necessarily originating from incorrect data within the Large Language Model (LLM) itself. This arises because understanding requires readers to actively construct meaning, and LLM-generated text, while often syntactically correct, can present information in ways that subtly distort or obscure its intended meaning. The complexities inherent in LLM outputs-including non-standard phrasing, unexpected inferences, and a lack of clear authorial intent-increase the cognitive load on the interpreter, making them more susceptible to misinterpreting the presented information. Consequently, even if the LLM’s underlying knowledge is accurate, the resulting text can facilitate erroneous conclusions due to the challenges of proper hermeneutic engagement.

Contextual mismatch and referential fabrication represent significant challenges in interpreting LLM-generated text. Contextual mismatch occurs when LLMs present information divorced from the circumstances necessary for accurate understanding; for example, stating a statistic without indicating the population or timeframe to which it applies. Referential fabrication involves the LLM creating citations or references to sources that do not exist, or attributing claims to nonexistent authorities. This fabrication extends beyond simple hallucination of facts to include the construction of entirely false scholarly or historical lineages. Both phenomena increase the difficulty of verifying information, as standard methods of source checking and contextual analysis may yield no corroborating evidence or lead to irrelevant or misleading results.

The cognitive effort required to verify information presented by Large Language Models (LLMs) significantly exceeds that of traditional text sources. Our evaluations demonstrate a low rate of error detection, with participants frequently failing to identify logical inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies within LLM-generated text. This increased ‘Verification Burden’ stems from the models’ capacity to produce fluent and seemingly coherent outputs that lack grounding in verifiable truth. Consequently, readers are predisposed to accept LLM outputs uncritically, increasing the risk of misinformation propagation and hindering effective knowledge acquisition. The observed difficulty in error detection suggests that relying on human evaluators alone is insufficient to ensure the reliability of LLM-generated content.

Beyond Surface Accuracy: Robust Evaluation of Language Models

Traditional single-turn human evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) is susceptible to biases that do not accurately reflect factual correctness. Evaluators consistently demonstrate a preference for responses exhibiting high fluency and, critically, a larger volume of citations, even when those citations do not support the claims made or are present in factually incorrect responses. This observed bias towards superficial qualities introduces significant noise into the evaluation process, potentially leading to the mischaracterization of LLM performance and hindering efforts to develop truly reliable and trustworthy AI systems. Our research confirms this tendency, indicating that citation count functions as a strong heuristic for human judgment, often overriding the identification of substantive errors.

Multi-round evaluation addresses the shortcomings of single-turn assessments by employing iterative questioning to expose evolving error patterns in Large Language Models (LLMs). This method moves beyond evaluating a single response, instead prompting the LLM with follow-up questions designed to test the consistency of its reasoning and identify subtle inconsistencies that may not be apparent in initial outputs. By observing how the LLM’s responses change across multiple rounds of interaction, evaluators can gain a more nuanced understanding of its strengths and weaknesses, and pinpoint areas where the model is prone to generating inaccurate or contradictory information. This iterative process allows for a more comprehensive assessment of the LLM’s overall reliability and robustness.

Automated detection techniques supplement human evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) by identifying specific factual errors and internal inconsistencies within generated text. These techniques extend the scope of error analysis beyond what is readily apparent to human reviewers and are particularly valuable when paired with multi-round evaluation processes. Our research indicates that while multi-round evaluation improves error detection, inconsistencies in agreement between human evaluators across those rounds persist; therefore, automated methods are crucial for establishing more robust and objective evaluation frameworks and for quantifying the prevalence of subtle, evolving errors that might otherwise be missed.

The study illuminates a crucial point regarding the evaluation of large language models: plausibility often eclipses veracity. Humans, predisposed to accept coherent narratives, can inadvertently reinforce inaccuracies within these systems. This mirrors a fundamental design principle – stripping away superfluous complexity to reveal underlying truth. As Grace Hopper observed, “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.” The tendency to prioritize fluent output over rigorous fact-checking represents a shortcut, a willingness to accept the ‘permission’ of a convincing response rather than diligently ‘asking forgiveness’ by scrutinizing its accuracy. The co-construction of epistemic error, as detailed in the research, demonstrates that simplifying evaluation to focus solely on linguistic quality obscures the essential task of discerning genuine knowledge.

Where Do We Go From Here?

This work exposes a troubling symmetry. Errors in large language models are not simply failures of engineering, but failures of evaluation. The models deliver plausibility. Humans accept it. Abstractions age, principles don’t. The problem isn’t generating text; it’s mistaking coherence for truth. Future research must move beyond metrics of fluency and focus on robust indicators of factual grounding.

Current evaluation protocols reward linguistic performance, not epistemic rigor. Every complexity needs an alibi. A critical next step involves developing methods to disentangle model-generated content from human cognitive biases. Can systems be designed to actively solicit evidence of accuracy, rather than passively accept it? Or will we continue to build sophisticated mirrors reflecting our own imperfections?

Ultimately, the challenge isn’t building ‘smarter’ models. It’s cultivating more discerning users. Digital literacy must evolve beyond basic information retrieval to encompass critical evaluation of generative systems. The focus should shift from ‘can it write?’ to ‘should it be believed?’. The long game isn’t artificial intelligence; it’s artificial skepticism.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.16750.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2025-12-22 03:01