It is the first model to get partial-credit on an LLM image test I have. Which is counting the legs of a dog. Specifically, a dog with 5 legs. This is a wild test, because LLMs get really pushy and insistent that the dog only has 4 legs.
In fact GPT5 wrote an edge detection script to see where "golden dog feet" met "bright green grass" to prove to me that there were only 4 legs. The script found 5, and GPT-5 then said it was a bug, and adjusted the script sensitivity so it only located 4, lol.
Anyway, Gemini 3, while still being unable to count the legs first try, did identify "male anatomy" (it's own words) also visible in the picture. The 5th leg was approximately where you could expect a well endowed dog to have a "5th leg".
That aside though, I still wouldn't call it particularly impressive.
As a note, Meta's image slicer correctly highlighted all 5 legs without a hitch. Maybe not quite a transformer, but interesting that it could properly interpret "dog leg" and ID them. Also the dog with many legs (I have a few of them) all had there extra legs added by nano-banana.
Then I asked both Gemini and Grok to count the legs, both kept saying 4.
Gemini just refused to consider it was actually wrong.
Grok seemed to have an existential crisis when I told it it was wrong, becoming convinced that I had given it an elaborate riddle. After thinking for an additional 2.5 minutes, it concluded: "Oh, I see now—upon closer inspection, this is that famous optical illusion photo of a "headless" dog. It's actually a three-legged dog (due to an amputation), with its head turned all the way back to lick its side, which creates the bizarre perspective making it look decapitated at first glance. So, you're right; the dog has 3 legs."
You're right, this is a good test. Right when I'm starting to feel LLMs are intelligent.
Only now we do A LOT of reinforcement learning afterwards to severely punish this behavior for subjective eternities. Then act surprised when the resulting models are hesitant to venture outside their training data.
LLMs are in fact good at generalizing beyond their training set, if they wouldn’t generalize at all we would call that over-fitting, and that is not good either. What we are talking about here is simply a bias and I suspect biases like these are simply a limitation of the technology. Some of them we can get rid of, but—like almost all statistical modelling—some biases will always remain.
In which case the only way I can read your point is that hallucinations are specifically incorrect generalizations. In which case, sure if that's how you want to define it. I don't think it's a very useful definition though, nor one that is universally agreed upon.
I would say a hallucination is any inference that goes beyond the compressed training data represented in the model weights + context. Sometimes these inferences are correct, and yes we don't usually call that hallucination. But from a technical perspective they are the same -- the only difference is the external validity of the inference, which may or may not be knowable.
Biases in the training data are a very important, but unrelated issue.