AI coding, unapologetic
Hallucinating
great code
since 2026.
Every other AI company apologizes for hallucinating. They sell you guardrails, grounding, and solemn promises not to make things up.
Making things up is the entire job. A model that never hallucinated could only ever hand you back what you already had.
The product is called gm
You describe something that does not exist. gm invents the whole file set, writes the tests that would catch it lying, runs them, and feeds every failure back into the next attempt until the suite is green. If it cannot get there, it says so.
$ gm "an LRU cache with TTL eviction" round 1: hallucinating... round 1: 3 files (package.json, src/lru.ts, test/lru.test.ts) round 1: verifying with node --test test/lru.test.ts round 1: failed (exit 1) in 0.4s round 2: hallucinating... round 2: verifying with node --test test/lru.test.ts round 2: passed in 0.3s PASS ./lru (2 rounds, node --test test/lru.test.ts)
The failing round is the point. A model that gets it right first try was answering an easy question; a model that finds its own bug in round two is doing the work. Every round is recorded, so the repair is auditable rather than magic.
Invent wildly. Verify hard.
-
Hallucinate
One shot at the entire thing. Every file is complete, with no stubs and no TODOs. Partial output is rejected before it ever reaches your disk.
-
Verify
The run has to prove itself by executing. The tests run under a hard timeout, with no network and no install step, in a sandbox that cannot escape its own directory.
-
Repair
A failure is not an apology, it is the next round's input: the exact command, exit code and output go back in, and the model attacks its own mistake.
Retrieval is not the product
Autocomplete finds what exists. You don't need a model for that. You need an index. The moment you ask for code that has never been written, you are asking a machine to invent, and invention is hallucination that landed.
The name was always the thesis
A genius moment is a hallucination that turned out right. The leap arrives unsourced and uncited, and then it works. We named the company after the thing everyone else calls a defect.
Judge the output, not the origin
Code has the rare property of being checkable. It compiles or it doesn't. The tests pass or they don't. So let it invent wildly, then hold the result to a standard nothing else in AI can meet.
The part nobody else will say out loud
We don't do history.
Ask us what happened in 1912 and you'll get nothing, on purpose. Recalling what already occurred is retrieval, not invention. It is the one job where making something up isn't creative, it's just wrong. It is not our wheelhouse and we won't pretend otherwise.
Leaning into hallucination only works if you're honest about where it stops. We do not handle facts, dates, events, citations, or biographies. Every single thing we build is generative, pointed at what doesn't exist yet, never at what already did.
Hallucinating great X
- codefirst
- music
- video
- voices
- historynever
Early access
Tell us what you'd point it at, and we'll come find you when your runtime and your kind of problem are ready.
Request early access