{ "title": "The Hallucination Tracker", "version": "1.1", "released": "2026-10-13", "url": "https://www.hallucination-free.org/tracker/", "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "creator": "Hallucination-Free", "citation": "Hallucination-Free. The Hallucination Tracker, version 1.1, 2026-10-13. https://www.hallucination-free.org/tracker/", "scope": "Four curated incidents with readable primary evidence, spanning documented milestones in 2022–2024. Not an exhaustive dataset, prevalence estimate or trend measure. Prevention fields are editorial analysis. License covers original summaries and compilation, not linked source records.", "records": [ { "id": "HF-001", "title": "Mata v. Avianca: fabricated authorities in a court filing", "event_date": "2023-03-01", "date_precision": "day", "date_basis": "Filing date identified in the court order; not the date of model generation.", "organization": "Levidow, Levidow & Oberman P.C.", "context": "Legal filing", "system": "ChatGPT, as identified by the court; version not verified", "what_happened": "The court describes nonexistent opinions, with fabricated quotations and citations generated by ChatGPT, being submitted and then defended after their existence was questioned.", "impact": "The court required production of the cited opinions and issued a show-cause order. This record does not quantify sanctions because the disposition was not accessible in this review.", "response": "The court records that respondents stood by the opinions after judicial orders questioned them. A separate case-specific firm or developer statement was not verified; the court account is not a direct statement from them.", "response_status": "Court account only; separate statement unverified", "response_url": "https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Mata-v.-Avianca.pdf", "prevention_analysis": "A filing gate requiring a reviewer to retrieve each original authority and verify its quotation and proposition would reject citations that cannot be substantiated. An unresolved authority must block filing; a generated assurance is not evidence.", "primary_source_url": "https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Mata-v.-Avianca.pdf", "source_scope": "Substantive indexed opening only; complete opinion and disposition not retrieved.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-13" }, { "id": "HF-002", "title": "Air Canada: chatbot advice contradicted the fare policy", "event_date": "2022-11", "date_precision": "month", "date_basis": "Month of chatbot interaction; tribunal decision dated 2024-02-14.", "organization": "Air Canada", "context": "Customer service", "system": "Website chatbot; model and architecture not established by the passages reviewed", "what_happened": "The tribunal describes a chatbot advising that bereavement fares could be requested retroactively, followed by employees saying they could not. The passenger sought the fare difference.", "impact": "The tribunal mostly allowed the claim and found Air Canada had not taken reasonable care to ensure chatbot accuracy. The award amount was not recoverable and is not reported here.", "response": "The decision records Air Canada denying liability, disputing retroactive eligibility and seeking dismissal (paragraph 4). Paragraph 22 records a company response acknowledging misleading chatbot wording.", "response_status": "Company position and acknowledgement recorded in tribunal decision", "response_url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/IGG/AI%2BPart%2B1%2B-%2BMaterials/Moffatt%2Bv.%2BAir%2BCanada.pdf", "prevention_analysis": "Generate fare eligibility from a versioned approved policy decision, and prevent unsupported prose from promising an exception. Conflicting advice should route to review before the traveler relies on it. This is a proposed control, not a finding about the unknown chatbot implementation.", "primary_source_url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/IGG/AI%2BPart%2B1%2B-%2BMaterials/Moffatt%2Bv.%2BAir%2BCanada.pdf", "source_scope": "Tribunal decision on third-party host. Indexed heading and paragraphs 1–11 plus recovered same-document passages 22 and 28; complete order unavailable.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-13" }, { "id": "HF-003", "title": "Park v. Kim: an unverified ChatGPT citation reaches an appeal", "event_date": "2024-01-30", "date_precision": "day", "date_basis": "Date of the opinion documenting the citation and referral; reply-brief filing and generation dates were not recovered.", "organization": "Counsel in Park v. Kim", "context": "Legal filing", "system": "ChatGPT, as identified in the opinion; model version unverified", "what_happened": "The opinion records counsel admitting that a reply brief cited a nonexistent state-court decision suggested by ChatGPT without reading or otherwise verifying it.", "impact": "The Second Circuit referred counsel to its Grievance Panel and ordered that the client receive the opinion. The underlying dismissal was affirmed for persistent violations of court orders, separately from the fabricated citation. Later disciplinary outcomes are not established here.", "response": "The opinion records counsel explaining the use of ChatGPT to find supporting precedent and arguing that courts should caution lawyers about the technology. This is a recorded explanation, not a separately verified firm or developer statement.", "response_status": "Counsel explanation recorded in the opinion; no separate developer response verified", "response_url": "https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/22-2057/22-2057-2024-01-30.pdf?ts=1706626850", "prevention_analysis": "Require a retrieved original decision and a checked proposition before a citation enters a filing. A generated citation without an inspectable authority must fail review. Referral and case dismissal should also be tracked separately when auditing consequences.", "primary_source_url": "https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/22-2057/22-2057-2024-01-30.pdf?ts=1706626850", "source_scope": "Court opinion on Justia. Same-document indexed heading and passages about the citation, counsel explanation and consequences; full PDF and screenshot inaccessible.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-13" }, { "id": "HF-004", "title": "Google AI Overviews: forum sarcasm becomes glue-on-pizza advice", "event_date": "2024-05", "date_precision": "month", "date_basis": "Month of the erroneous overview episode addressed by Google on May 30, 2024; exact generation date not established.", "organization": "Google", "context": "Search answers", "system": "Google Search AI Overviews; exact model version not established by the passages reviewed", "what_happened": "Google acknowledged an AI Overview advising glue to make cheese stick to pizza and said some overviews incorporated sarcastic or trolling forum content. This record concerns unsupported advice presented as an answer; Google distinguishes such source misinterpretation from outright fabrication.", "impact": "Google acknowledged erroneous overviews and announced changes to when they appear and how certain sources are handled. The passages reviewed do not establish that anyone followed the advice or suffered physical harm.", "response": "Google attributed errors to misinterpreted queries, web-language nuances and gaps in reliable information. It announced better detection of nonsensical queries, limits on satire and humor, and restrictions on potentially misleading user-generated content. These are company-reported changes, not independently measured effectiveness.", "response_status": "Direct company response; indexed substantive passages", "response_url": "https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/search/ai-overviews-update-may-2024/", "prevention_analysis": "A source-support check must assess whether content is serious and applicable, not just whether an answer matches a retrieved page. Withhold actionable food advice when support is sarcastic, unreliable or unresolved. Test this gate with adversarial forum and satire examples.", "primary_source_url": "https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/search/ai-overviews-update-may-2024/", "source_scope": "Google response dated May 30, 2024. Indexed opening and targeted same-page passages recovered; complete body unavailable. Glue type, quantity and physical injury are not asserted.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-13" } ] }