Overall I'd say the easiest is just overall that the models always just follow what you say and transform it into a response. They won't have personal opinions or experiences or anything, although they can fake it. it's all just a median expected response to whatever you say.

And the "agreeability" is not a hallucination, it's simply the path of least resistance, as in, the model can just take information that you said and use that to make a response, not to actually "think" and consider I'd what you even made sense or I'd it's weird or etc.

They almost never say "what do you mean?" to try to seek truth.

This is why I don't understand why some here claim that AGI being already here is some kind of coherent argument. I guess redefining AGI is how we'll reach it