Jul 2026· Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies· 0 citations· 31 references
TL;DR
The Epistemic Proliferation Model is conceptualised as an ethical failure of restraint, that is, the tendency of fluent models to keep producing confident, expert-sounding language after evidential grounding has become weak or unverifiable.
Abstract
In generative artificial intelligence, hallucination is predominantly framed as a factual error or retrieval failure. This article conceptualises hallucination as an ethical failure of restraint, that is, the tendency of fluent models to keep producing confident, expert-sounding language after evidential grounding has become weak or unverifiable. Drawing on the Theravāda Buddhist concept of papañca (conceptual proliferation) and the Abhidhamma analysis of the mental factors (cetasikas), the paper develops the Epistemic Proliferation Model. Operating strictly within a non-anthropomorphic paradigm, the framework analyses how language models structurally reproduce the linguistic artefacts of human craving (lobha), conceit (māna), rigid views (diṭṭhi), and delusion (moha) inherited through training data. It distinguishes epistemic proliferation from Frankfurtian bullshit, sycophancy, and overconfidence, and proposes a five-dimensional diagnostic rubric covering evidential drift, unsupported elaboration density, authority inflation, inferential concealment, and abstention failure. The wholesome cognitive factor sati (mindfulness) and the mode of attention known as yoniso-manasikāra (wise attention) are translated into the governance principle of epistemic anchoring. The framework shifts mitigation focus from post-hoc sentence correction to the structural restraint of ungrounded generative expansion, supplying actionable criteria for responsible AI design and oversight.
A concise two-axis framework that integrates an “intrinsic-extrinsic” distinction in source attribution introduced by Ji et al. with a “faithfulness-factuality” distinction in contextual grounding surveyed is presented, yielding four clearly defined hallucination types applicable across tasks, modalities and architectu...
Misbah Khan, Preston Billion-Polak, T. Khoshgoftaar· IEEE Access· 0 citations
HALO (Hallucination-Aware Layered Oversight) is presented, an assurance architecture which treats hallucination as a containable failure mode rather than an eliminable one and detail each layer, give particular attention to evidence-based confidence (which verifies extractions against the source document rather than tr...
Bogdan Raduta, Horia Velicu, Alexandru Preda et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
A pragmatic, multi-stage framework specifically tailored for international courts and arbitral tribunals to identify, manage, and respond to AI-generated falsehoods is proposed, which emphasizes procedural fairness, a factor-based assessment of culpability and impact, and a graduated range of remedial measures availabl...
D. Charlotin· Journal of International Dis...· 0 citations
It is argued that structural ignorance of the future transforms hallucinations into interpretive probes of nineteenth-century ontologies, and TimeCapsule, a 1.2B-parameter LLaMA-style causal model trained exclusively on Victorian texts, is presented as an epistemologically isolated generative archive.
The study reveals that AI hallucinations have three kinds of manifestations, which include content distortion, evidence failure and improper argumentation, which comprises factual error, false or irrelevant citation, and superficially coherent arguments lacking evidence.
This paper studies hallucinated CoT as a discourse-structural phenomenon, not only a factual one, and suggests that discourse structure provides an interpretable signal for detecting reasoning hallucinations and complements existing factuality and uncertainty-based hallucination detectors.
Boris Galitsky· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.