← Back to blog
memoryhallucinationconfabulationscreen-free

The lying memory game: inventing without knowing it

We played at recalling a trip to Dijon. Then we checked against the photos. Romane remembered a golden owl with feathers and bright eyes. The real owl is worn down, almost invisible. Nobody was lying.

Date15 mars 2026
Target age6-10 yrs
Duration30 minutes
MaterialsNo materials needed, just shared memories, Optional: a notebook to write down each person's version

Romane remembered the owl very clearly.

Golden, with clearly carved feathers and eyes that seemed to glow. Sculpted in stone, easy to see, at child height on the side of the church. She could describe the details. She was certain.

The Dijon owl exists. But it's been worn smooth by centuries of rubbing (a local tradition for good luck). Almost nothing remains. A vague shape in gray stone, barely recognizable. No eyes. No feathers. A ghost silhouette.

What memory fabricates

An AI that generates text doesn't "lie" when it invents facts. It does what its training taught it to do: produce something plausible, coherent, well-formed. When it lacks information, it fills in the gaps. Not out of bad faith. By design.

This is called hallucination. But the human brain does exactly the same thing. Memories aren't recordings. They rebuild themselves every time we recall them — and with each reconstruction, they can drift.

Romane's golden owl might have come from a picture seen in a book about Dijon, from a stuffed owl toy, from an idea of what a carved owl should look like. Her brain filled in what the stone no longer had.

The activity

No materials needed. Just a shared recent memory (a trip, an outing, a place you visited together).

Everyone tells their version without interrupting the others. In detail. The colors, the shapes, what you touched, what order things happened in.

Then you compare.

Where versions diverge, ask: "Are you sure? Why do you remember it that way?"

Second step, if you have photos: check. Compare the memories against the images. Not to be right. To see together how memory works.

What actually happened

We were talking about the trip to Dijon. I asked Romane to describe the owl. She started without hesitating: golden, feathers you could see, eyes that seemed to look at you. She appeared to be seeing the sculpture right in front of her as she spoke.

I asked Meryl. He thought for a second. "I touched something cold." That was it. No shape, no color. Just the feeling of cold stone under his hand. What a three-year-old takes away from a trip: what he felt in his palm.

I pulled up the photos on my phone.

Romane looked. Looked again. The owl in the photo is a gray, smooth surface with a vague hollow. "But... where are the feathers?"

I explained that thousands of people have rubbed it for centuries for good luck, and the stone has worn away. What's left is the location. Almost not the shape anymore.

She was quiet for a moment. Not upset — troubled. "So I was remembering an owl that doesn't really exist?"

I said yes, it does exist. But her brain had rebuilt a more complete, clearer version — one that matched what an owl sculpted in stone should look like. It had filled in the gaps.

"Like AI does?"

Like AI does.

To finish

The question Romane asked before bed: "If I remember the owl wrong forever, is that bad?"

I don't think it is. But it's worth knowing that your memory isn't a camera.

Neither is an AI's.

What the kids said

Romane was sure the owl had golden eyes and clearly visible feathers. The real one is so rubbed away you can barely make out the shape. Meryl remembered touching something cold.