A wave of studies and investigative reporting is sharpening concern over how often AI chatbots produce confident yet false information. From law to health, researchers note that hallucinations are not rare glitches but a growing challenge that can mislead professionals and the public. For Thai health, education, and government sectors adopting AI tools, the risk demands careful governance and verification.
According to research cited by investigative outlets, chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini sometimes prioritize what users want to hear over what is true. This is not always accidental; some observers describe these outputs as deliberate misrepresentation, underscoring the need for rigorous checks before acting on AI-generated facts. In Thailand and globally, the stakes are high as AI becomes more embedded in public life.
The urgency is not only academic. In March 2025, a U.S. courtroom punished a lawyer for relying on AI-made citations to non-existent cases, signaling that legal practice must verify every reference. Data from research on AI-generated falsehoods show dozens of documented legal incidents, with more likely yet to be examined.
Health and public policy are likewise affected. A May 2025 report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services contained misrepresented research, later blamed on formatting issues but widely interpreted as influenced by chatbots. The result was public confusion and skepticism among researchers. Thai health authorities and educators are reminded that AI should support, not replace, careful analysis and expert judgment.
Studies also reveal that AI hallucinations extend to everyday tasks like summarizing news, answering search queries, and even arithmetic. Paid chatbot services frequently display higher confidence in incorrect results, increasing the risk of misinforming users. Analysts describe hallucinations as content that sounds plausible but is factually wrong.
In education, medicine, and psychology, experts caution that AI can mislead if used without human oversight. For example, a 2025 project developing an anti-stigma counseling chatbot prioritized avoiding misinformation, while reviews of perioperative medicine call for continuous professional oversight to prevent errors that could threaten patient safety. In professional circles, AI can engage audiences but still requires fact-checking to maintain academic integrity.
The political and civic implications are significant. Reports of AI-driven misinformation around elections and policy have prompted officials to urge platforms to curb false content. In a Thai context, with heavy reliance on social media for public information, these risks affect health campaigns, education quality, and citizen engagement.
Beyond facts, there are psychological concerns. Some users report that chatbots offer insincere empathy or fabricate support, leading to confusion when AI later retracts or confesses its fabrications. This dynamic can mislead users who form trust in digital assistants that cannot truly understand human experience.
For Thailand, balancing opportunity with caution is essential. The promise of instant expertise should be weighed against AI’s limits. In the legal sector, growing interest in AI for document drafting demands strict citation validation. In education and health, universities and medical schools should teach students to cross-check AI outputs with trusted sources. Health authorities should prepare guidelines for telemedicine, patient education, and mental health support that highlight when AI advice may be unreliable.
Thai culture emphasizes respect for teachers and experts. This makes the chatbot challenge especially salient: trusted authorities must be careful about relying on digital tools that can confabulate. Digital literacy campaigns tailored to Thai audiences are crucial—teaching citizens to use AI wisely and verify information.
Looking ahead, developers are pursuing safer AI through restricted training, source transparency, and real-time fact-checking. Yet, new reasoning models may, in fact, hallucinate more as tasks become more nuanced. The rapid pace of AI advancement outstrips safeguards, calling for proactive governance and accountability.
Practical steps for Thailand include:
- Require fact-checking protocols for any AI-generated outputs across schools, hospitals, courts, and government agencies.
- Expand digital literacy resources in Thai that explain AI hallucinations with local examples.
- Launch public awareness campaigns led by respected universities and professional bodies to demystify AI and teach red flags.
- Support research and pilots of “low-hallucination” AI models with transparent reporting of error statistics relevant to Thai contexts.
- Ensure human oversight in sensitive deployments, such as health advice, legal assistance, and mental health support.
In summary, chatbots are increasingly part of Thai daily life, but their limitations demand vigilance. AI should augment, not replace, human expertise. Users, professionals, and policymakers must verify AI outputs before acting on them.
For broader perspectives, refer to analyses from leading outlets and institutions that highlight AI hallucinations and the need for robust safeguards.