AI

AI Blunder: Bard Mislabels Air Crash

AI Blunder: Bard Mislabels Air Crash sparks debate over AI accuracy after chatbot wrongly blamed Airbus.
AI Blunder: Bard Mislabels Air Crash
Editorial Team
by Editorial Team
Jun 13, 2025, 3:40 pm

AI Blunder: Bard Mislabels Air Crash

AI Blunder: Bard Mislabels Air Crash is drawing sharp scrutiny across the tech and aviation sectors. Google’s AI chatbot, Bard, recently misattributed a tragic Boeing 777 Air India crash to Airbus, a company that had no connection to the incident. This factual inaccuracy has reignited industry-wide concern about the reliability of generative AI. It raises questions around trust, liability, and the importance of fact-checking in automated systems. As AI tools become increasingly integrated into daily workflows, examining mistakes like this is critical to understanding the risks posed by machine-generated content without proper oversight.

Key Takeaways

  • Google Bard incorrectly claimed Airbus was responsible for a Boeing 777 Air India crash.
  • This incident highlights the growing issue of AI hallucinations in generative models.
  • Misinformation caused by AI tools can lead to reputational risks and misinformed public discourse.
  • Experts emphasize the urgent need for automated fact-checking and human oversight in generative AI systems.

Table of contents

The Incident: What Bard Got Wrong

In early 2024, Google’s AI chatbot Bard generated a response that falsely attributed the cause of a 2010 Air India Express crash to Airbus instead of Boeing. The crash involved a Boeing 777 operated by Air India Express that overran the runway while trying to land in Mangalore, India. Bard’s output wrongly linked Airbus to the event and inaccurately assigned responsibility to a manufacturer unrelated to the incident.

This kind of misinformation highlights a major challenge within generative AI. These hallucinations, or factually incorrect outputs stated with confidence, often demonstrate how crucial contextual reliability is. The fact that this particular incident involved a fatal aviation crash makes the error even more serious and ethically concerning.

Airbus responded by confirming it had no involvement in the accident and, as of now, has not taken legal action. Google has not issued a public retraction but reportedly began an internal review.

Understanding AI Hallucination

AI hallucination happens when a model generates information that seems plausible but lacks factual accuracy. This is common across large language models like Google Bard and OpenAI’s GPT series. These models are designed for language coherence, not truthfulness.

Main reasons for hallucinations include:

  • Inference over accuracy: Algorithms prioritize producing relevant text rather than verifying facts.
  • Lack of contextual judgment: Words are generated based on probability rather than detailed understanding.
  • Absence of fact-checking layers: Without a direct link to structured, verified databases, mistakes go undetected.

In this case, associating Airbus with a Boeing crash reflects Bard’s failure to validate factual manufacturer connections. A similar issue surfaced when Google’s AI browsing tool leak exposed limitations in contextual awareness, suggesting this is not an isolated challenge.

Not the First Time: Historical Hallucinations by Bard and Others

Google Bard has made other factually incorrect claims since its release. Examples include:

  • Misstating that the James Webb Space Telescope captured the first image of an exoplanet.
  • Referencing fictitious mental health studies in responses about wellness strategies.
  • Misquoting high-profile technology executives in discussions related to AI policy.

ChatGPT also shares a pattern of hallucination. It has been caught generating false legal references used in court briefings. This has led to mounting demands from courts and regulatory bodies to prohibit AI-generated content in professional environments unless thoroughly validated. For a detailed breakdown, check out this comparison between Bard and ChatGPT that explores their factual reliability.

Expert Insights: Perspectives from AI and Aviation Professionals

AI researchers and experienced aviation professionals have spoken out about the danger of such inaccuracies.

“When generative AI tools provide incorrect associations in domains like aviation, the consequences aren’t just reputational. They can misinform the public and potentially affect corporate partnerships,” says Dr. Elisa Cheng, an AI ethics researcher at Stanford University.

“In aviation, accuracy is paramount. Misreporting even basic information like aircraft manufacturers reflects poor comprehension and threatens public trust in a time when misinformation evolves quickly,” explains Rajeev Joshi, a retired airline safety consultant based in Mumbai.

Both experts call for safety nets that identify and correct false claims. They advocate systems that allow generative AI to excel without misrepresenting facts in regulated industries.

AI Hallucination Statistics: How Often Do These Errors Happen?

Independent research shows hallucinations are widespread among AI language models. A 2023 study by Stanford’s Center for Research on Foundation Models found that:

  • Factually incorrect statements appeared in 18 to 29 percent of generated outputs.
  • ChatGPT-3.5 showed a 23.2 percent hallucination rate in zero-shot scenarios. Bard surpassed 30 percent in some tasks.
  • Complicated queries in domains like law or healthcare triggered hallucination rates above 40 percent.

Such data emphasizes that these outputs should be treated as drafts rather than verified sources. In sensitive domains, this unreliability must be addressed through multiple layers of oversight.

What Tech Companies Should Do: Mitigation and Responsibility

To improve output accuracy, AI developers must implement strong mitigation steps. These include the following strategies:

  • Real-time fact-checking: Connect models to reliable knowledge graphs or reference databases that validate information on the fly.
  • Confidence signaling: Showing how certain the model is about an answer helps users assess credibility.
  • Internal and external audits: Combined human and machine evaluations can identify and flag high-risk errors before public release.
  • Public education: Users need to understand that AI-generated answers, especially in technical or critical contexts, should always be verified independently.

Some vendors like OpenAI are testing retrieval-augmented generation methods to anchor model responses in verified data. Google is also expanding its AI applications in other fields, such as AI-powered 15-day weather forecasting, though factual reliability there remains tightly monitored.

Conclusion: Trust Must Be Earned, Not Generated

The Bard mislabeling event is more than a simple mistake. It signals a broader concern about generative AI’s readiness for handling factual content. Misidentifying a major aircraft manufacturer in a fatal incident reflects a deeper issue with AI’s understanding of context and accuracy.

To rebuild and maintain public trust, companies and policymakers must prioritize technical transparency and accountability. Consumers should remain vigilant and knowledgeable about how they use these tools. For example, when AI gets facts wrong in areas like aviation or public safety, the consequences can become immediate and damaging.

Call to Action: Always fact-check any AI-generated content using reliable external sources. Let AI support your process, not control it.

References

Explore More from AI