Well hallucinations are natural, if you consider how these models work. And interestingly, that's how we work, too.
What we might not notice any more is that we tend to subject anything we come up with to some plausibility control and then discard obvious gibberish rather quickly... unless we are tired, drunk or otherwise debilitated, which then has that nonsense come out unfiltered.
Young kids also don't have those filters trained yet, which also has them come up with "hallucinations" we then often find delightful or charming.
But that 2nd corrective phase also works with these models to a certain degree, perhaps it should be made part of formulating the response, but it would raise the operational load significantly.
So when I found e.g. Llama or Mistral hallucinating or contradicting itself on factual queries, just asking a question that would show how its last couple of answers would have it contradict itself, the model would notice and then correct mistakes, my first instances of artifical contrition!
I've had tons of fun with hallucinations especially debating historical personalities. They typically wound up being brothers and sisters, both male, but having offspring, who'd then be grandfather and nephew to each other... it obviously understood royalty and its constrained choices rather well!
Without analysing or knowing its training data it's unfortunately rather hard to gauge where it's more likely to go off the rails, I don't know if the models calculate just how sure they are of a certain answer e.g. because they have lots of data, but if they did, it doesn't seem to influence their word choice in their answers today: they'll be just as confident in their tone on total bollocks and proper facts.