Leaders Insights
Leaders Insights

Rester au meilleur niveau, un peu chaque jour.

DomainesMarketingDataFinanceIA
RessourcesApprendreTestOutilsBlogGlossaire
© 2026 Leaders Insights — Tous droits réservés.
Formations/AI Essentials/AI & LLM foundations/Capabilities, limits and hallucinations/What a model actually does: prediction, not understanding
3/3+130 XP

Capabilities, limits and hallucinations

1What LLMs are great at (and what they are not)+1302Hallucinations: why confident answers can be wrong+1503What a model actually does: prediction, not understanding+130

What a model actually does: prediction, not understanding

# What a model actually does: prediction, not understanding

Type "The capital of France is" into any AI tool and it will say "Paris." It feels like the model *knows* this. It doesn't. It just calculated that "Paris" is the most likely word to come next, based on patterns in billions of sentences it was trained on. The answer is correct, but the mechanism is prediction, not knowledge.

This one idea explains almost everything weird about working with AI: why prompts matter so much, why the same question gives different answers, and when you should double-check before you trust.

The extremely well-read autocomplete

You already use prediction every day. Your phone suggests the next word as you text. Type "I'll be there in five," and it offers "minutes." That's a tiny autocomplete trained on common phrases.

A large language modellarge language modelA Large Language Model is an AI system trained on vast text data to predict and generate language, enabling tasks like writing, summarizing, and answering questions.Voir la définition complète → (LLMLLMA Large Language Model is an AI system trained on vast text data to predict and generate language, enabling tasks like writing, summarizing, and answering questions.Voir la définition complète →, the technology behind ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini) is the same idea, scaled up massively. It has read an enormous slice of the internet, books, and code, and learned the statistical patterns of how language flows.

When you ask it something, it does not look up an answer in a database. It generates a response one tokentokenA token is the basic unit of text that language models process, often a word fragment, whole word, or punctuation mark rather than a single character.Voir la définition complète → at a time. A tokentokenA token is the basic unit of text that language models process, often a word fragment, whole word, or punctuation mark rather than a single character.Voir la définition complète → is a chunk of text, usually a word or part of a word ("walking" might be "walk" + "ing"). For each tokentokenA token is the basic unit of text that language models process, often a word fragment, whole word, or punctuation mark rather than a single character.Voir la définition complète →, the model asks: *given everything so far, what comes next?*

It picks a likely tokentokenA token is the basic unit of text that language models process, often a word fragment, whole word, or punctuation mark rather than a single character.Voir la définition complète →, adds it, then repeats. A whole essay is just this guessing game running thousands of times.

Why "well-read" matters

Because it has seen so much text, the model's predictions are often genuinely useful. It has absorbed how legal contracts are phrased, how Python functions are structured, how a polite email opens. That's real, valuable pattern-matching.

But it is still pattern-matching. The model has no concept of *true* or *false*. It has a concept of *likely* or *unlikely*. Usually those overlap. Sometimes they don't, and that gap is where things go wrong.

Why the same question gives different answers

Ask ChatGPT "Give me a name for my coffee shop" three times and you'll get three different lists. This surprises people. Shouldn't a computer be consistent?

Here's why it isn't. At each step, the model doesn't just pick the single most likely tokentokenA token is the basic unit of text that language models process, often a word fragment, whole word, or punctuation mark rather than a single character.Voir la définition complète →. It picks from a range of likely options, with some randomness mixed in. This is controlled by a setting called temperature.

  • Low temperature (near 0): the model almost always picks the most likely tokentokenA token is the basic unit of text that language models process, often a word fragment, whole word, or punctuation mark rather than a single character.Voir la définition complète →. Output is repetitive and predictable.
  • Higher temperature (around 0.7 to 1.0): the model takes more chances. Output is more creative and varied.

Most chat tools run at a medium temperature by default, which is why you get fresh answers each time. If you use the APIAPIApplication Programming Interface: a standardised interface that lets applications communicate and exchange data without knowing each other's internal workings.Voir la définition complète → (the developer interface for sending requests directly to the model), you can set this yourself:

python
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI()

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="gpt-5",
    temperature=0.2,  # low = more consistent, focused answers
    messages=[
        {"role": "user", "content": "Name 3 ideas for a coffee shop."}
    ]
)
print(response.choices[0].message.content)

Set temperature=0.2 and run it twice: the answers will be very similar. Set it to 1.0 and the lists will diverge wildly. Same prompt, different dice roll.

Practical takeaway: for creative brainstorming, embrace the variation. For tasks where you need consistency (data extraction, classification, formatting), lower the temperature or run the task in the APIAPIApplication Programming Interface: a standardised interface that lets applications communicate and exchange data without knowing each other's internal workings.Voir la définition complète → where you control it.

Why prediction explains hallucinations

A hallucinationhallucinationA hallucination is when an AI model generates output that is fluent and confident but factually wrong, fabricated, or unsupported by its source data.Voir la définition complète → is when the model states something false with total confidence. It invents a court case, a research paper, a quote, or a statistic that does not exist.

Once you understand prediction, this stops being mysterious. The model's job is to produce *plausible* text. A fake citation like "Smith et al., 2019, *Journal of Applied Linguistics*" looks exactly like a real one. It fits the pattern. The model has no internal fact-checker saying "wait, does this paper actually exist?" It just continues the most likely sequence.

This is why hallucinations are most dangerous when:

  • You ask for specific facts the model is unsure about (exact dates, names, numbers, legal citations).
  • The topic is niche and underrepresented in its training data.
  • You phrase a question as if a false premise were true. Ask "Why did Einstein win two Nobel Prizes?" and the model may invent a second prize, because "answering the question" is the likely pattern, even though Einstein won only one.

The model would rather give you a confident, fluent wrong answer than say "I don't know," because fluent answers are what it was trained to produce.

Large Language Models explained briefly

Watch on YouTube

How this changes the way you prompt

If the model predicts based on context, then the context you give it is your steering wheel. Better input means better predictions.

Give it the right starting pattern

The model continues whatever pattern you set up. So set up a good one.

Weak prompt:

> Write about marketing.

Strong prompt:

> You are a marketing advisor for a small bakery. Write 3 specific Instagram post ideas for promoting a new sourdough loaf. Keep each under 40 words.

The second prompt gives the model a role, a topic, a format, and a constraint. That narrows the prediction toward exactly what you want.

Provide the facts yourself

Don't rely on the model to recall obscure details. Paste them in. If you want a summary of a specific report, give it the report. This technique, feeding the model the source material, dramatically reduces hallucinationhallucinationA hallucination is when an AI model generates output that is fluent and confident but factually wrong, fabricated, or unsupported by its source data.Voir la définition complète → because the model now predicts from *your* text, not its hazy memory.

> Here is our Q3 sales data: [paste]. Summarize the top 3 trends in plain English.

Ask it to show uncertainty

You can prompt the model to flag when it's guessing:

> Answer this question. If you are not confident or don't have the information, say so explicitly instead of guessing.

This doesn't make the model perfect, but it nudges the predicted text toward honesty. For a deeper, free guide on writing effective prompts, OpenAI's prompt engineering guide is a solid starting point.

Vérification des acquis

1. When an AI tool correctly answers that the capital of France is Paris, what is actually happening according to the lesson?

2. The lesson says the model has a concept of 'likely' or 'unlikely' but not of 'true' or 'false'. Why does this distinction matter?

3. Why does asking the same coffee-shop-name question three times produce three different lists?

CHOIX MULTIPLES

4. Select ALL statements that accurately describe how a large language model generates a response.

Sélectionnez toutes les réponses correctes.

CHOIX MULTIPLES

5. Select ALL correct statements about the analogy between an LLM and phone autocomplete.

Sélectionnez toutes les réponses correctes.

When to trust it, and when to verify

Prediction is reliable for some tasks and risky for others. Here's a simple rule of thumb based on what the model is actually doing.

Generally safe (the model transforms text you gave it):

  • Rewriting, summarizing, or translating text you provided.
  • Brainstorming ideas (where being "wrong" doesn't matter).
  • Drafting structure: outlines, email templates, first drafts.
  • Explaining well-known, widely-documented concepts.

Verify carefully (the model recalls or invents facts):

  • Specific statistics, dates, names, and quotes.
  • Legal, medical, or financial specifics.
  • Citations and sources (always check they exist).
  • Recent events near or after the model's training cutoff.

A useful mental shortcut: the model is strongest when it's *processing* information you handed it, and weakest when it's *retrieving* information from memory.

A note on tools that search the web

Modern versions of ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini can now browse the web or use connected tools. When a model searches and cites a live source, it's far more trustworthy, because it's predicting from real fetched text rather than memory. But still click the link. Sometimes the model summarizes a source incorrectly or cites a page that doesn't say what it claims.

The mindset shift

Stop treating the AI like a search engine or an oracle. Treat it like a brilliant, fast, slightly overconfident intern who has read everything but remembers details imperfectly.

You wouldn't send an intern's first draft to a client without reading it. You wouldn't trust their memory of a specific legal clause without checking the document. But you'd absolutely use them to draft, brainstorm, reformat, and explain.

That's exactly the right relationship with an LLMLLMA Large Language Model is an AI system trained on vast text data to predict and generate language, enabling tasks like writing, summarizing, and answering questions.Voir la définition complète →. It predicts; you verify and decide.

Key Takeaways

  • The model predicts the next token, it does not "know" facts. Fluent and confident does not mean correct. Treat every specific claim as a draft to verify.
  • Different answers to the same question are normal. Randomness (temperature) is built in. Lower it for consistency, keep it higher for creativity.
  • Hallucinations come from the model's drive to be plausible. It would rather produce a believable wrong answer than admit it doesn't know. Be especially skeptical with niche facts, dates, numbers, and citations.
  • Steer with context. Give the model a clear role, format, and the actual source material. It predicts from what you provide, so good input produces good output.
  • Trust it to transform, verify it to recall. Summarizing your document is safe; reciting a statistic from memory is not.

À faire, tiré de cette leçon

Ces actions sont compilées dans le plan d'action du rôle.

  • Verify all citations, numbers, dates, names, and high-stakes claims against sources
  • Ground the model by pasting source text and restricting answers to it
  • Write specific prompts with examples, roles, and format constraints
  • Set temperature low for factual work, high for creative brainstorming
  • Treat every AI answer as a draft you edit
Voir le plan d'action complet →

Précédent

Hallucinations: why confident answers can be wrong

Retour au parcours