In plain words: Learning theory shows no language model can master every rule that could be computed, so it will sometimes contradict the true answer. Because real-world models face the same limit plus time limits, hallucination can be reduced but never fully removed.
Abstract · Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models
Hallucination has been widely recognized to be a significant drawback for large language models (LLMs). There have been many works that attempt to reduce the extent of hallucination. These efforts have mostly been empirical so far, which cannot answer the fundamental question whether it can be completely eliminated. In this paper, we formalize the problem and show that it is impossible to eliminate hallucination in LLMs. Specifically, we define a formal world where hallucination is defined as inconsistencies between a computable LLM and a computable ground truth function. By employing results from learning theory, we show that LLMs cannot learn all the computable functions and will therefore inevitably hallucinate if used as general problem solvers. Since the formal world is a part of the real world which is much more complicated, hallucinations are also inevitable for real world LLMs. Furthermore, for real world LLMs constrained by provable time complexity, we describe the hallucination-prone tasks and empirically validate our claims. Finally, using the formal world framework, we discuss the possible mechanisms and efficacies of existing hallucination mitigators as well as the practical implications on the safe deployment of LLMs.
Ziwei Xu, Sanjay Jain, Mohan Kankanhalli
arXiv:2401.11817 · cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG · submitted Jan 22, 2024 · updated Feb 13, 2025
abstract · pdf · html
No one uses the NFL to "prove" that LLMs can't learn to be the best optimizers, because it also proves that people can't be the best optimizers, but we manage somehow, so the theorem is irrelevant.
This is a fallacy of proving too much.