Search

Generative artificial intelligence is emerging as a potentially important component of precision agriculture through its capacity to create synthetic data, generate agricultural imagery, retrieve and reformulate knowledge, support conversational advisory interfaces, and assist decision-support workflows. However, evidence of technical feasibility is developing faster than evidence of agronomic validity, reliability, farmer-centred usefulness, and responsible deployment. This critical review evaluates generative AI as a distinct agricultural technology class, with particular attention to generative adversarial networks, diffusion models, variational autoencoders, large language models, vision-language models, foundation models, fine-tuning, prompting, domain adaptation, and retrieval-augmented generation. It critically examines the proposed use of synthetic crop, disease, weed, pest, and remote-sensing data for augmentation, class-imbalance mitigation, and label-scarcity support, while emphasizing image realism, biological plausibility, source-data quality, and synthetic-real domain gaps. The review also assesses generative decision support and advisory systems, distinguishing accessible language generation and knowledge retrieval from agronomically validated recommendations. Reliability concerns include hallucination, factual inaccuracy, uncertainty underreporting, poor local adaptation, robustness limitations, benchmark insufficiency, and failures of human oversight. Responsible deployment further requires data governance, privacy protection, accountability, transparency, explainability, farmer trust, digital inclusion, risk monitoring, and assessment of computational and sustainability costs. The review contributes an integrated opportunity-risk interpretation and identifies priorities for domain-specific benchmarks, synthetic-data validation, hallucination measurement, uncertainty-aware assistance, human-in-the-loop evaluation, farmer-centred design, governance documentation, and cautious field-readiness assessment.

Generative artificial intelligence is expanding the conversational and interpretive functions available within precision-farming decision support, yet fluent responses may contain factual inaccuracies, unsupported claims, fabricated evidence, agronomically invalid interpretations, local-context mismatches, or understated uncertainty. This article develops a conceptual artificial-intelligence safety framework for managing these risks in generative agricultural decision-support systems. The framework treats hallucination risk as a socio-technical safety problem rather than solely as a language-model defect. It links agricultural use-case definition, advisory-output classification, farm-level consequence assessment, data and knowledge provenance, retrieval and response grounding, hallucination screening, factual verification, agronomic-validity review, uncertainty communication, human oversight, expert escalation, farmer feedback, traceability, accountability, monitoring, and controlled updating. Generative outputs are differentiated according to whether they provide information, interpretation, scenario explanation, or recommendation-like content, because the evidentiary and review requirements increase with potential consequence. Validation is similarly separated into factual checking, external evaluation, local-context assessment, agronomic review, and future field-validation planning. The framework establishes decision boundaries against unsupported agronomic advice, autonomous farm action, hallucination-elimination claims, safety guarantees, and deployment-readiness claims. It also allocates responsibilities among developers, platform providers, data stewards, knowledge-base curators, agricultural reviewers, and farmers while preserving farmer autonomy. The main contribution is an integrated safety model for structuring how hallucination-prone generative outputs may be interpreted, reviewed, restricted, escalated, recorded, and updated within precision-farming decision support. The framework is conceptual and does not independently establish advisory correctness, operational safety, legal compliance, or deployment readiness.