Really appreciate this addition, Mateo!
The agentic systems point is spot on — and honestly something I didn't fully explore in the post. A hallucinated answer you can fact-check before acting on it. A hallucinated action (wrong API call, bad data write) might already be done before anyone notices.
This might actually be worth a follow-up post — "Why hallucination gets more dangerous as AI gets more autonomous." Curious if you've seen specific failure patterns in agentic setups you're consulting on?
One of the biggest misconceptions about LLMs is that confidence is a signal of correctness. It isn't. Confidence is often just a reflection of how statistically likely a sequence of words is.
The section on RLHF is especially important. Users naturally prefer answers that sound complete and authoritative, so models are incentivized to be helpful and decisive even when the underlying certainty isn't there. That's why hallucinations can be so convincing.
I'd add that this becomes even more critical with agentic systems. A hallucinated answer is one thing; a hallucinated action is another. When AI starts making API calls, modifying data, or triggering workflows, uncertainty handling becomes just as important as model capability.
The engineers who get the most value from AI aren't the ones who trust it blindly—they're the ones who know exactly where its failure modes are.