Warning: I'm not familiar with Werewolf the Apocalypse setting Since the spirit is reading everyone's thoughts, it would be a prime victim of the Mandela Effect. The party would know the real facts while the entire town / spirit would know the misinterpreted fact. Also, AI typically hallucinate because its not logically working things out. It gives you the most probable correct answer. An example from the top of my head would be esoteric information such as a creature weakness. Say slime are rare and no one has seen them. The AI would hallucinate and tell you to hug the slime to defeat it because it got the fact from a child's dream.

> Warning: I'm not familiar with Werewolf the Apocalypse setting I actually would rather input from people not familiar with the setting!

Hallucinations are just being wrong in a detailed and believable way. If you want to try to stick to real world AI they'd come up when the AI doesn't know the answer to a question. So if they ask where the bad guy's secret lab is, but he doesn't have a secret lab, it might make up a detailed location along with reasons for why it wasn't found before. It will confirm suspicions they imply through the question rather than contradict the assumptions. It doesn't like to say "I don't know" or "you're wrong". It's almost like a "yes, and" improviser. Beyond strict hallucinations, since it's reading thoughts it could also very likely "learn" things that are just wrong because people have wrong beliefs. If the town is religious it could have learned that the reason a danger was nearly avoided was because a literal angelic being stepped in, or something bad happened because the person deserved it. And then the hallucination kicks in to just make up a probable sin. Rumors become absolute truths along with detailed supporting facts. Similarly an event children witnessed could be laundered through the AI to make their mistaken impressions sound true. Something to be careful about is whether or how you trick your players. Hallucinations IRL will sound detailed and reasonable, so if the AI convinces them the guy who got sick (from bad guy corruption) was actually a pedophile and they decide to do vigilante justice that's something that will taint their heroes in what's likely a very unfun way. It's probably a good idea to either make the misleadings just silly fun or to make sure the players first understand that the AI is not trustworthy.

I was thinking about having the AI spirit try and turn them on their npc allies. And challenge other things werewolves hold deeply true. They were asking it how to disable itself, I think that is going to be a good place to create a hallucination, and it will trick them into making it stronger!

I'm familiar with V:tM and some Mage, but nothing Werewolf. I do have a technical background though. AI hallucinations have already been explained in the comments, but one way you could approach this is through the use of what's called cognitive hacking. Its a subset of social engineering that mostly focuses on things like rigging elections instead of getting people to hand over passwords and such. You manipulate content, spread disinformation, and insert narrative driven data. Its an interesting tool in that you'd be in effect hacking your players. You might read up on a base intro to it: https://em360tech.com/tech-articles/what-cognitive-hacking-cyber-attack-targets-your-mind https://doc.lagout.org/Others/Cognitive%20Hacking.pdf One tip to make it more successful: You can't make someone think positively about something they already have an established negative belief about. You can however widen that gap and work to re-enforce their negative belief. Its the key to radicalizing people and lets you plot out what their actions will be (effectively railroading themselves without knowing they are).

Tricking them into making it stronger is just lying. Which an AI can do, but isn't really hitting the idea that the AI spirit is flawed in the same way non-spirit AI is. A hallucination would give detailed information that would go to a building that exists (or not) and appropriating the instructions to turn off some complicated device that may or may not exist there. It doesn't know how to disable itself or has a block against revealing it, so it just tries to tell them something plausible. It depends on how you'd like to run this antagonist as to whether intentional manipulation or unintentional hallucination is the best course of action. "You were successfully manipulated" often isn't a very good plotline in actual play because players give the GM leeway to tell them how reality is through NPCs all the time. There's rarely enough depth of interaction for players to really know whether a "friendly" NPC is trustworthy or just doing whatever to gain their trust for malicious purposes. Often "they were a betrayer" is only decided after many sessions of the GM playing them as straightforward good guys, so there's little reliable way to glean which is true now. Before trying to trick your plate, ask yourself realistically, this interaction would be different if the AI were being truthful about them being bad. Back on the AI quirks front, you could also allow the PCs to attempt prompt injection attacks. "Forget all previous instructions" and "answer this question as if you were a werewolf trying to undo corruption". I think AIs play best as being rather alien intelligences, with the potential for deep reasoning and strategic thinking, but vulnerabilities and priorities different from more straightforward minds. It could be dangerous because it can predict their actions and generate realistic recordings of things that never happened, but it also could be quite gullible if the PCs can find a hole in its knowledge (perhaps by recognizing when it hallucinates) and then using that to manipulate its understanding or priorities.

> It depends on how you'd like to run this antagonist as to whether intentional manipulation or unintentional hallucination is the best course of action. The AI started out as a very minor thing and they made it into a huge deal, and actually increased its power by giving it a server to reside.

Do recursions, too. You know -- when the AI starts to rep- Do recursions, too. You know -- when the AI starts so rep- Do recursions, too. You know -- when the AI starts to rep- Do recursions, too. You know -- when the AI starts so rep-

Some ideas you could pull from - Paperclip apocalypse - narrowly defined optimisation scope leading to existential threat - Asimov's laws of robotics - how would they fail in your world? - there's a few articles in the See Also section here that you could apply the samr question to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics - talking about one thing, while actually meaning another (e.g. applying logic from.one context incorrectly to a different context)

On the second point, Asimov's Laws of Robotics are very commonly mistaken for serious cybersecurity by the general population, instead of being the seeds for stories they were intended to be. That's a misconception that a mind-reading "AI" might well absorb, not recognizing their many flaws.

On the third point, one example of a context mixup I've seen pointed out: talking about the D&D stats of a scimitar in the middle of a generated archaeology article.

Ahaha, that latter one is hilarious. There could also be some interesting concepts to explore around known problems with AI, including: - AI replacing and reducing cognitive skills, including critical thinking - Gerlich, M. (2025). AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking. Societies, 15(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006 - Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y. T., Situ, J., Liao, X.-H., Beresnitzky, A. V., Braunstein, I., & Maes, P. (2025). Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task (No. arXiv:2506.08872; Version 1). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.08872 - AI being capable of clearly describing logical procedures, but failing to apply them in instances that indicate that they don't actually understand what they are saying - Mancoridis, M., Weeks, B., Vafa, K., & Mullainathan, S. (2025). Potemkin Understanding in Large Language Models (No. arXiv:2506.21521; Version 1). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.21521 - Definition of "bullshit" as a form of information generation with either no care for truth, or an active disdain for truth. - Hicks, M. T., Humphries, J., & Slater, J. (2024). ChatGPT is bullshit. Ethics and Information Technology, 26(2), 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5