90 incidents on record · 2026 Headlights Incident reports by Ellie Harris · Melbourne
10 new this week Library last updated 13 July 2026
← The incident library
HD-INC-073
Healthcare · United States · 2024 · Hallucination & fabrication

An AI transcription tool used by clinicians invented text no one said, researchers reported, and the audio that could have proved it was deleted

By Ellie Harris · Filed AP investigation published 26 October 2024

Alleged: OpenAI (Whisper); Nabla (medical transcription vendor, as reported) developed or deployed the AI system implicated in this incident. Details are drawn from public reports; parties are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing not established by an official finding.

An AI transcription tool used by clinicians invented text no one said, researchers reported, and the audio that could have proved it was deleted

What happened

In October 2024 the Associated Press reported that Whisper, OpenAI’s speech-to-text model, invents chunks of text that no one ever said, and that the tool was nonetheless being used in hospitals and clinics through a medical transcription vendor. The reporting drew on more than a dozen engineers, developers and researchers. A University of Michigan researcher studying public meetings said he found fabrications in eight of every ten transcriptions he inspected before he began trying to improve the model; a machine-learning engineer told the AP he initially found them in about half of more than 100 hours of transcriptions; a third developer said they appeared in nearly every one of 26,000 transcripts he had created. A study by researchers including Allison Koenecke of Cornell and Mona Sloane of the University of Virginia found that about 1 percent of transcriptions of short audio snippets contained entire hallucinated phrases or sentences, and that 38 percent of those hallucinations carried explicit harms: perpetuating violence, making up inaccurate associations, or implying false authority. One example the AP printed had a speaker mention “two other girls and one lady” and the transcript add that they “were Black”; another invented a medication that does not exist, “hyperactivated antibiotics”.

The clinical stakes came through the vendor Nabla, whose Whisper-based tool, the AP reported, was used by over 30,000 clinicians and 40 health systems and had transcribed an estimated 7 million medical visits. Nabla told the AP it was aware Whisper can hallucinate and was mitigating the problem, said its model was fine-tuned on medical language, and said clinicians must quickly edit and approve the notes, though it added that could change. But the tool erased the original audio for what the company called data safety reasons, and the AP reported it was impossible to compare an AI-generated transcript against the recording it came from. In responses published days after the investigation, Nabla said clinicians can opt in to storing the audio of individual visits and that hallucination had not been reported to it as a significant issue across its encounters. “You can’t catch errors if you take away the ground truth,” William Saunders, a former OpenAI engineer, told the AP. OpenAI’s own guidance warned against using Whisper in high-risk domains and in decision-making contexts, and the company told the AP it continually studies how to reduce hallucinations. The investigation documented no specific patient injury, and no fabricated text was shown in an actual patient record; what it documented was a tool shown to fabricate text being deployed to draft medical notes, with the audio that could check them deleted behind it.

What an auditable version would have shown

A transcript is a claim about what was said, and the reported design made that claim unfalsifiable: the model’s output survived, the recording it described did not. An auditable version binds every generated note to a signed record of what produced it, the model and version, the audio it consumed or a cryptographic fingerprint of it, and what the clinician changed before approval. Retention can respect privacy and still preserve verifiability. With that record, a disputed line in a chart is a checkable question rather than a coin toss between the patient’s memory and the machine’s.

Where the gap was

Model output became the raw material of medical records as if it were a recording, when it was a reconstruction. A VerificationGate treats a generated transcript as a draft until something trustworthy has confirmed it, routing low-confidence passages and consequential content, medications, dosages, allegations, to a human check against the source before the note is filed. A ConductRecord preserves the provenance of every note, so that the question the AP’s sources could not answer, did the patient say this or did the model, has an answer in the file itself.

What governance should have looked like

The rule the reported deployment inverted is simple: the higher the stakes, the longer the evidence should live. A tool known by its own maker to fabricate content was pointed at clinical conversations, and the deployment deleted the one artefact that could prove any given sentence true or false. Fine-tuning and clinician review are mitigations, not records. A system generating text that becomes part of a medical chart should preserve, in signed form, enough of its own working that an error can be traced years later, because charts outlive both the software and the visit.

The reference implementation of VerificationGate and ConductRecord is open source. It lives at github.com/saffronandindia/headlights-oss, Apache 2.0 licensed and free to install. The repository is public now.

Sources

The mailing list

Fresh incident reports every week. One email to match.

We add new incidents to the library regularly, and send a single short email each week with what's new. The library stays free and open; this is just how you keep up with it.

No tracking. Unsubscribe in one click.

The record

An auditable system would have produced a signed, tamper-evident record the moment this happened: what the system did, the version that did it, the basis it acted on, and the action taken, and OpenAI (Whisper); Nabla (medical transcription vendor, as reported) could have produced it on demand.

This is the record the system as deployed did not produce in a signed, auditable form.

What this teaches
Capture what happened when it happens
What the system did, the version that did it, the basis it acted on, and the action taken, recorded at the moment, not reconstructed after.
Sign it, so no one has to trust the record-keeper
A tamper-evident entry. Edit it later and the signature breaks. The record does not ask for the benefit of the doubt.
Make it verifiable by anyone
A court, a regulator, a customer's lawyer can check the record themselves, without taking the company, or us, at our word.

Headlights summarises publicly reported AI incidents. All summaries are independently written, attributed to their original sources, and intended for research and educational purposes. Allegations are identified as such until established through official findings.

Last reviewed June 2026. This report is based on the sources listed above and reflects information available at the time of review; later developments may not be captured. Where a person is described as charged with or alleged to have done something, that allegation is unproven unless a conviction or a court or regulatory finding is stated. Headlights publishes journalism and commentary, not legal advice.

Want to write back?

Direct to my inbox.

ellie@useheadlights.com →