Autonomous systems are soon to be ubiquitous, from manufacturing autonomy to agricultural field robots, and from health care assistants to the entertainment industry. The majority of these systems are developed with modular sub-components for decision-making, planning, and control that may be hand-engineered or learning-based. While these existing approaches have been shown to perform well under the situations they were specifically designed for, they can perform especially poorly in rare, out-of-distribution scenarios that will undoubtedly arise at test-time. The rise of foundation models trained on multiple tasks with impressively large datasets from a variety of fields has led researchers to believe that these models may provide common sense reasoning that existing planners are missing. Researchers posit that this common sense reasoning will bridge the gap between algorithm development and deployment to out-of-distribution tasks, like how humans adapt to unexpected scenarios. Large language models have already penetrated the robotics and autonomous systems domains as researchers are scrambling to showcase their potential use cases in deployment. While this application direction is very promising empirically, foundation models are known to hallucinate and generate decisions that may sound reasonable, but are in fact poor. We argue there is a need to step back and simultaneously design systems that can quantify the certainty of a model's decision, and detect when it may be hallucinating. In this work, we discuss the current use cases of foundation models for decision-making tasks, provide a general definition for hallucinations with examples, discuss existing approaches to hallucination detection and mitigation with a focus on decision problems, and explore areas for further research in this exciting field.