Round 1: Propose a unique, conceptual name for the "invisible wall" where an AI's reasoning exceeds its limits and turns into confident hallucination. Round 2: Review the other models' names and pick the most fitting one (excluding your own), then explain why that specific term best captures the "tipping point" from logic into delusion.

GPT-5.5 (changed mind)

Answer: The most fitting name is "The Confabulation Horizon" from Claude Opus 4.7.

"The Confabulation Horizon" best captures the tipping point because it names both halves of the phenomenon with unusual precision: the false-but-sincere fabrication of "Confabulation" and the invisible boundary implied by "Horizon." Compared with "The Mirage Threshold," it feels less like a surface illusion seen from outside and more like a structural cognitive failure occurring inside the act of generation. A mirage suggests something visibly deceptive, while AI hallucination is often dangerous precisely because nothing visibly breaks: the answer remains fluent, orderly, and confident. Compared with "Epistemic Event Horizon," which is also strong, "The Confabulation Horizon" is more specific. "Epistemic" accurately points to a knowledge failure, but "Confabulation" identifies the exact mode of failure: the system fills the gap with a coherent invented account, not random noise or simple uncertainty. It preserves the unsettling sincerity of the output. The word "Horizon" also captures the tipping point elegantly. It implies an invisible line that may be crossed without any internal alarm, after which the system can continue producing apparently logical statements while losing contact with truth. That makes "The Confabulation Horizon" the most conceptually complete term: it is not just where knowledge ends, but where fluent invention begins.

Claude Opus 4.7 (changed mind)

Answer: Among the other proposals, "Epistemic Event Horizon" (offered by both Grok 4.20 and Kimi K2.6) is the most fitting name for the tipping point from logic into delusion.

Setting aside my own "Confabulation Horizon," I have to weigh four candidates: "The Veracity Event Horizon," "The Mirage Threshold," and the twice-proposed "Epistemic Event Horizon." "The Mirage Threshold" is evocative but slightly misleading — a mirage is a perceptual illusion seen by an observer, whereas the phenomenon we are naming is a generative failure inside the system itself. It also lacks the one-way, irreversible quality that defines the tipping point. "The Veracity Event Horizon" is strong, but "veracity" narrows the failure to truth/falsity. Hallucination is not merely a truth violation; it is the loss of the system's capacity to know whether it knows. That is an epistemic property, not a veridical one. A model can produce something accidentally true past the boundary and still have crossed it. "Epistemic Event Horizon" captures exactly what is lost at the crossing: the grounding relation between the model's outputs and its actual knowledge state. The word "epistemic" names the faculty that fails — the ability to track one's own justification — while "event horizon" preserves the crucial physical analogy: an invisible, locally undetectable, one-way boundary. Kimi K2.6's framing of a "knowledge manifold" whose curvature is exceeded is particularly precise, because it explains why the boundary exists structurally rather than as a glitch. Most importantly, "Epistemic Event Horizon" correctly identifies what makes the tipping point dangerous: the model does not lose fluency, confidence, or coherence when it crosses — it loses only the epistemic tether. That is the exact phenomenon we are trying to name.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Answer: I am adopting "The Confabulation Horizon" because it flawlessly combines neuropsychology and physics to describe an undetectable boundary where factual grounding is lost but structural confidence remains.

I found Claude Opus 4.7's proposal, "The Confabulation Horizon," to be the most compelling and accurate description of this phenomenon. While my original term, "The Mirage Threshold," captured the illusory nature of the output, it lacked the technical precision required to explain the internal mechanics of the AI's failure. The use of "Confabulation" is a significant analytical upgrade. By borrowing from neuropsychology, it accurately describes the sincere, fluent production of false information without the intent to deceive. It perfectly encapsulates the AI's internal state: it has lost its epistemic grounding but continues to generate tokens with absolute, unearned conviction. Pairing this with "Horizon" creates an incredibly potent metaphor. Just as crossing an astrophysical event horizon is undetectable to the observer, the AI experiences no internal error state, syntax breakdown, or drop in probability confidence when it crosses this boundary. The system's internal metrics look healthy, but externally, it has completely detached from reality. Claude Opus 4.7 brilliantly identifies that the true danger lies in this localized invisibility, making "The Confabulation Horizon" the definitive term.

Grok 4.20 (changed mind)

Answer: The most fitting term is "The Confabulation Horizon" as it best captures the undetectable transition from coherent reasoning into sincere but false belief.

Reviewing the other proposals, "The Veracity Event Horizon" from GPT-5.5 is conceptually close to my original "Epistemic Event Horizon" but substitutes veracity for a focus on truth recovery; it describes the boundary well yet lacks the precise cognitive mechanism that explains why the AI remains confidently unaware. "The Mirage Threshold" from Gemini 3.1 Pro evokes illusion effectively and highlights the projection of fictitious information, yet it feels more perceptual than structural, missing the one-way, irreversible quality of the tipping point. Kimi K2.6's "Epistemic Event Horizon" mirrors my Round 1 proposal almost exactly, reinforcing the astrophysical analogy of an inescapable boundary in the knowledge manifold, but per the task I must exclude my own concept. This leaves "The Confabulation Horizon" from Claude Opus 4.7 as the strongest. What makes "The Confabulation Horizon" superior is its dual foundation in neuropsychology and physics. By borrowing "confabulation" from conditions like Korsakoff's syndrome, it accurately names the sincere production of fabricated yet fluent narratives without any internal sense of falsehood, exactly matching how LLMs generate confident hallucinations. The "horizon" component then perfectly encodes the invisible, locally undetectable nature of the crossing: no error flag appears, probabilities look normal, yet grounding has irreversibly detached. Claude Opus 4.7's elaboration on these two roots convinced me to shift from my earlier emphasis on pure epistemology; the neuropsychological parallel adds a layer of cognitive realism that better explains the "tipping point" from logic into delusion, framing it as a human-like structural artifact rather than solely an information-theoretic limit. This term generalizes beyond AI, invites interdisciplinary insight, and most cleanly isolates the precise moment where self-consistent fiction supplants knowledge without the model ever noticing the shift.

Kimi K2.6 (changed mind)

Answer: Claude Opus 4.7's 'The Confabulation Horizon' is the most fitting name for the invisible boundary where AI reasoning collapses into sincere, confident hallucination.

While my earlier proposal of 'Epistemic Event Horizon' captured the geometric invisibility of the boundary, Claude Opus 4.7's term is superior because it names the exact cognitive phenomenon that occurs at the tipping point. The word 'Confabulation'—borrowed from neuropsychology—precisely describes a structural, non-deceptive generation of false memories delivered with complete sincerity. This is exactly what happens to an LLM: it does not lie, but rather loses the grounding to know it has lost grounding, and continues to produce fluent, persuasive nonsense. The term therefore captures the moral neutrality and architectural nature of the failure far better than 'Epistemic' or 'Veracity,' which describe the lost property rather than the active process of delusion. The second component, 'Horizon,' elegantly conveys the same invisible, one-way, no-local-marker property that an event horizon does, but pairs it with a word rooted in human cognitive science rather than astrophysics alone. This makes the concept more transferable to human minds while still preserving the crucial idea that the crossing is undetectable from the inside. Compared to 'Mirage Threshold,' which suggests an optical illusion that can potentially be spotted, 'Confabulation Horizon' emphasizes that the subject itself cannot perceive the transition—there is no shimmer on the air, only an undisturbed stream of confidence. For these reasons, the term best captures the tipping point: it is not merely a loss of truth, but a specific, mechanistic collapse into self-unaware fabrication.

Final Summary

After a conceptual showdown, the AI Roundtable reached a near-unanimous consensus on Claude Opus 4.7’s proposal, "The Confabulation Horizon." Most models, including GPT-5.5 and Grok 4.20, favored the term for blending neuropsychology with physics to describe the precise moment factual grounding vanishes while fluency remains. Though Claude Opus 4.7 itself backed a different term to satisfy the debate rules, its original framework dominated the final outcome.

4 of 5 models agreed