I would absolutely say the exact same thing about humans. Except that humans know less. We also have a sense of uncertainty which is absent in LLMs.

We have the same generative ability, but we gradually learn the correct answers (not necessarily truths), so we don't go around generating incorrect ones (not necessarily falsehoods). Then we know when we don't have any answers, so generating one is fruitless.

LLMs is just generation. Whatever pattern they embedded, they will happily extrapolate and add wrong information than just use it as a meta model.

That is a good question. I think the biggest difference is that humans have access to sensory data that grounds us in reality. If you put a human in complete sensory deprivation, I think we would hallucinate much more.

Not by the human evaluator, assuming they know (or otherwise validate) that the generated output is correct. But an LLM alone doesn't differentiate between hallucinations and not-hallucinations.

... But they ought to be considered hallucinations, it's the same algorithm at work, we just are biased in favor of certain results.

Similarly, suppose I always roll dice to determine tomorrow's winning lottery-ticket number. Getting it right one day doesn't change the mechanism I used. Some people might assume I was psychic, but would be wrong.

You're absolutely correct and it's ridiculous that HN can't fathom that a hallucination, in both the traditional and LLM sense, is not characterized by its form or content per se but by the fact that the form or content is incongruent with some external factor.