Concern 109 · Working draft · editorial review in progress

Cross-lingual hallucination

Cross-lingual hallucination concerns unsupported or incorrect AI answers when a task involves different languages or translation between them.

Understanding the concern

Unequal training resources can make some languages harder for a system to handle. Translation may also change a condition or local meaning while leaving the answer fluent enough to appear dependable.

The original entry claimed errors are always more severe in low-resource languages; that needs task-specific evidence. The safer claim is that performance can differ and should be tested by knowledgeable speakers, including checks of sources in the relevant language.

An example

A translated service explanation sounds natural but drops a condition that changes who qualifies.

Illustrative unless identified as a documented case.

Words in plain English

AI
Software that learns patterns from examples or uses rules to perform tasks such as recognizing images or generating text. It can make mistakes and does not understand every situation as a person would.
Training
The process of using examples to shape how an AI model behaves. Learning patterns from material does not establish that the material is true or fair.
Hallucination
An AI output that sounds plausible but is false or unsupported, such as an invented source.

Evidence and its limits

Documents resource inequality and confabulation as separate concerns; does not claim a universal cross-language error ranking.

Explore these sources in the library →
Broader frameworks and background

These resources provide context. They do not establish every claim in this concern.

A question to discuss

Has someone checked both the language and the underlying claim in the version users will read?

Keep track of different views, what needs checking, and any next step in your own discussion notes.

Open discussion notes →
Principles for the conversation

Before you finish · reflect together

Virtues and principles to consider

Virtues are qualities we practice in how we treat people and make choices. They are not scores for judging someone. Use these ideas to explore what a thoughtful response could look like.

Humility

Humility means recognizing the limits of our knowledge and being willing to learn from others. Expertise can be valuable without answering every question.

State where evidence is weak, invite criticism, and listen to people with different experience. Leave room to revise a decision when new information appears.

Ask together: What might we be missing, and who could help us see it?

Prudence

Prudence means using careful judgment before and during action. It balances worthwhile opportunities with the need to avoid harm that could have been anticipated.

Start with a limited trial, set stopping points, and prefer choices that can be undone when uncertainty is high. Review what happens rather than assuming the original plan remains sound.

Ask together: What is a careful next step, and when should we stop or change course?

Truthfulness

Truthfulness means making claims that match the evidence and being clear about what we do not know. It includes correcting mistakes rather than protecting a polished story.

Check sources, label guesses, and distinguish a trial result from a proven benefit. If AI helped produce a claim, someone still needs to take responsibility for checking it.

Ask together: What can we honestly say, and what still needs checking?

Editorial ratings

These are editorial judgments from the register, not measured probabilities or predictions about your situation.

Severity
Serious · 3/5
Likelihood
Documented at scale · 5/5
Time horizon
Now
Register risk score
15
About the register and scoring →
More ways to explore

Search for more writing

For more specific or recent material, open a search below or ask for a web summary. AI-generated summaries can contain mistakes; open the original articles to check them.

Explore a proposed use of AI →