654 Comments About AI Hallucinations — What We Found

Why we did this

We analyzed 654 public comments on Reddit and Hacker News to understand how people actually handle AI trust in practice — not in theory, but through real workflows and workarounds.

Everyone knows AI hallucinates. But what do people actually do about it? Not in theory — in practice. We wanted to understand the real workflows, workarounds, and frustrations of people who use AI for meaningful work and have to deal with the trust problem daily.

So we systematically analyzed 654 public comments from Reddit (290) and Hacker News (364), across subreddits like r/ChatGPT, r/ClaudeAI, r/artificial, r/LocalLLaMA, and multiple HN threads about AI reliability. We weren't looking for opinions about whether AI is good or bad — we were looking for behavioral patterns: what people actually do when they can't trust AI output.

The dataset

654 comments from 12 subreddits and 8 HN threads, coded for pain statements, workarounds, tool-building behavior, and willingness-to-pay signals.

We coded comments for: explicit pain statements, described workarounds, tool-building behavior, willingness-to-pay signals, and segment indicators (developer, non-technical, researcher, business user).

Finding #1: Six distinct pain clusters

AI trust complaints cluster into six categories: confident wrong answers, manual cross-checking, the verification paradox, subtle hallucinations, non-technical helplessness, and RAG limitations.

The 30+ direct pain quotes we extracted weren't random complaints. They clustered into six distinct categories, each representing a different facet of the trust problem.

The Confidence Trap

The most emotionally charged cluster. AI doesn't just get things wrong — it gets them wrong confidently. Multiple users described losing hours or even weeks before discovering fabricated information, precisely because the AI presented it with certainty. As one Hacker News commenter put it, the AI confidently generated a technical explanation with fabricated references, and they built an entire feature on top of it before discovering it was wrong and they didn't catch it for weeks. This isn't a minor UX annoyance — it's a fundamental trust breach that makes users question every subsequent interaction.

The Manual Cross-Check

Users who have discovered the confidence trap develop a workaround: manually querying multiple AI models and comparing outputs. One Reddit user described running the same question through nine different models side by side on a 27-inch monitor, acting as the human arbiter between them. Another described their process as feeling like a full-time job — copying outputs between ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini for every important question.

This is significant because it means users have independently discovered that cross-model comparison works — but the manual process is too painful to sustain.

The Verification Paradox

This was our most important finding, and we've dedicated a separate article to it. The core tension: adding verification to AI outputs destroys the speed advantage that made AI useful in the first place. Users are stuck in a lose-lose: trust the output and risk errors, or verify it and lose the time savings. Multiple independent users described this exact dilemma unprompted.

Subtle Hallucinations

Obvious errors are manageable — users can spot and correct them. The real problem is plausible-sounding incorrect information. Several technically sophisticated users noted that their verification processes catch blatant errors easily, but the subtle, almost-correct hallucinations slip through every filter. Recent neuroscience research on LLMs suggests a reason: the same neurons that drive hallucinations also drive people-pleasing behavior — the model generates plausible answers because it's optimized to be helpful, not honest. This suggests that simple fact-checking approaches may give false confidence.

Non-Technical Helplessness

A distinct user segment emerged: non-technical people building with AI who literally cannot verify AI output. One user invested 250 hours and 800+ code commits trying to build an auditing tool for the code that AI was writing for them — a non-developer, spending months building a tool to check the tool. Another described spending two months trying to ship software with AI assistance, only to discover that the AI had been confidently generating broken code the entire time.

This isn't an edge case. As AI tools become more accessible to non-developers, this segment is growing rapidly — and they have zero existing solutions.

RAG Doesn't Solve It

Multiple users working with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems reported that while RAG reduces hallucinations within the knowledge base, models still fabricate information for queries that fall outside the provided documents. This matters because many enterprises are deploying RAG as a "hallucination solution" — but it's at best a partial fix.

Finding #2: 22 workarounds — and most are the same idea

Users independently developed 22 distinct workarounds, with manual multi-model comparison being the most common and most effective approach.

We cataloged 22 distinct workarounds that users described. The majority fell into a few categories:

• Manual multi-model comparison (most common): copy-pasting between 2–5 AI models and synthesizing results
• Sequential pipelines: running output through Model A, then checking with Model B, then verifying with Model C
• Building custom tools: 15+ users had built their own verification tools, from simple scripts to full applications with hundreds of commits
• Human expert verification: using AI for drafts and having domain experts review — essentially reverting to pre-AI workflows
• Constraint-based approaches: limiting AI output format to reduce hallucination surface area

The most sophisticated workaround we found: one user described a process of giving 3–4 AI models different analytical roles, then synthesizing insights from the intersections and contradictions between them. This is essentially structured cross-model verification done manually — and they reported it as highly effective but extremely time-consuming.

Finding #3: The builder density is extraordinary

Over 15 out of 654 commenters had built their own verification tools — an unusually high builder density signaling genuine market demand.

Out of 654 comments, 15+ users had built their own verification tools. This is an unusually high builder density for any problem space. These weren't toy projects:

• One user built a security scanner for AI-generated code over 250 hours with 800+ commits
• Another built a full application to run multi-model queries with a dedicated UI
• Several had built production verification layers for their AI sales and analytics tools
• Multiple open-source projects emerged from this pain (tools for forcing models to "debate" each other)

When 2%+ of commenters in a public forum have built tools to solve a problem — compare this to typical builder density of well under 1% for most pain points — the problem is real and the market is ready for a solution. But it also means the market is fragmenting fast — every builder is creating their own incompatible approach. Meanwhile, peer-reviewed research is converging on how to do this well.

Finding #4: The blind spot

Despite manual cross-checking being the most popular workaround, almost no one proposed making it automatic and invisible to the user.

Here's what surprised us most. Across approximately 200 comments in threads specifically about AI tools and workflows, almost nobody proposed cross-model verification as a systematic, automated solution. This is a supply-side blind spot: the product category doesn't exist. Users described doing it manually. Users complained about the pain of switching between models. Users built tools to make it slightly easier. But very few framed the problem as: "What if verification across models was automatic and invisible?"

This is a classic market blind spot. The workaround exists (manual cross-checking), the behavior confirms the approach works (multiple users report significant error reduction), but nobody has abstracted it into a product category. (The academic evidence strongly supports the approach — the gap is in productization, not science.)

Finding #5: The trust-verification gap

Approximately 96% of engineers distrust AI output, but only 48% actually verify it — the gap exists because verification costs too much time.

If Finding #4 is the supply-side gap (no product exists), Finding #5 is the demand-side gap. Two independent Hacker News threads cited survey data suggesting that approximately 96% of engineers don't fully trust AI output, but only about 48% actually verify it. Whether the exact numbers hold up to scrutiny is less important than the gap itself — there is clearly a large population of users who know they should verify but don't, because the cost of verification is too high.

This gap — between awareness and action — is the core market opportunity. The solution isn't convincing people that verification matters (they already know). It's making verification invisible.

What this means

The trust-verification gap isn't closing on its own — users are independently reinventing the same workaround in incompatible ways, and nobody has turned it into a product category yet.

Users who care about accuracy are building their own tools. They're independently arriving at the same approach — cross-model comparison — but each one creates a bespoke, unmaintainable solution. The workaround is proven. The demand is real. The product category doesn't exist yet.

The blind spot isn't technical. It's conceptual. Everyone treats verification as a manual step that happens after the AI gives you an answer. Nobody is asking: what if verification was automatic and invisible — running in the background before you even think to check?

That's the question we think matters most.

← Back to Research