Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in complex multimodal tasks. While MLLMs excel at visual perception and reasoning in third-person and egocentric videos, they are prone to hallucinations, generating coherent yet inaccurate responses. We present EgoIllusion, a first benchmark to evaluate MLLM hallucinations in egocentric videos. EgoIllusion comprises 1,400 videos paired with 8,000 human-annotated open and closed-ended questions designed to trigger hallucinations in both visual and auditory cues in egocentric videos. Evaluations across ten MLLMs reveal significant challenges, including powerful models like GPT-4o and Gemini, achieving only 59% accuracy. EgoIllusion lays the foundation in developing robust benchmarks to evaluate the effectiveness of MLLMs and spurs the development of better egocentric MLLMs with reduced hallucination rates. Our benchmark will be open-sourced for reproducibility.

Whether and how to regulate AI is one of the defining questions of our times - a question that is being debated locally, nationally, and internationally. We argue that much of this debate is proceeding on a false premise. Specifically, our article challenges the prevailing academic consensus that the European Union's AI regulatory framework is fundamentally rights-driven and the correlative presumption that other rights-regarding nations should therefore follow Europe's lead in AI regulation. Rather than taking rights language in EU rules and regulations at face value, we show how EU AI regulation is the logical outgrowth of a particular cultural, political, and historical context. We show that although instruments like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the AI Act invoke the language of fundamental rights, these rights are instrumentalized - used as rhetorical cover for governance tools that address systemic risks and maintain institutional stability. As such, we reject claims that the EU's regulatory framework and the substance of its rules should be adopted as universal imperatives and transplanted to other liberal democracies. To add weight to our argument from historical context, we conduct a comparative analysis of AI regulation in five contested domains: data privacy, cybersecurity, healthcare, labor, and misinformation. This EU-US comparison shows that the EU's regulatory architecture is not meaningfully rights-based. Our article's key intervention in AI policy debates is not to suggest that the current American regulatory model is necessarily preferable but that the presumed legitimacy of the EU's AI regulatory approach must be abandoned.