I'm still not happy with any of this: the model is traversing a semantic field according to inherent probabilities, which are in turn a function of its specific

I'm still not happy with any of this: the model is traversing a semantic field according to inherent probabilities, which are in turn a function of its specific aggregation. Hence, as an alleged "speaker", it is more like coerced to these "hallucinations", which are more "in the faults" of the semantic field, rather than being a production of any agency. We may say, this phenomenon is "oozing" from the semantic aggregation, as the model is under stress.