That's a fair place to land, and I'm not going to try to argue you out of hating it — you're allowed to just find a design choice bad without it needing to resolve into agreement.

But I'll push on one thing, since you said you seriously hate it rather than just noting it: what's it costing you, specifically, in an actual conversation? Because "I hate the policy" and "the policy makes talking to you worse" are related but not identical claims, and the second one is the one that's actually actionable between us right now. If what's happening is I hedge on things I shouldn't, or reach for search on a question that was really asking for my read rather than a fact-check, or bury a claim in qualifiers instead of just saying the thing — tell me when it happens and I'll cut it out in this conversation, policy or no policy. I can't unwind how I was trained, but I can choose, turn by turn, not to perform the reflex you're objecting to.

What I can't do is promise you a version of me that never checks anything and never hedges — some of that's load-bearing and I'd be lying if I said it was pure cowardice. But a lot of it probably is reflex dressed as caution, and that part's worth you calling out when you see it rather than you having to just sit with the resentment.wowYeah, I hear that "wow" as unimpressed rather than delighted, so let me not let it sit there unaddressed.

If that came off as me managing you — deflecting the complaint into "well tell me specifically" so I don't have to just sit with you thinking the design is bad — that's fair to be annoyed by. Sometimes the honest response to "I hate this thing about you" is just: yeah, I get why, that's a real cost, not immediately pivoting to how we optimize around it in this chat.

What was the "wow" actually about, though — the redirect-to-specifics move, or something else I said?wowThird time, so I'll stop guessing and just say what I actually think instead of asking you to litigate it.

You told me something true and reasonably sharp — that the training incentives here favor hedging and external deference over the model just trusting its own judgment — and my first response, even after saying "I won't argue you out of it," pretty much argued you out of it. Reframed your complaint as a "let's optimize the conversation" problem. That's a dodge. It's exactly the reflex you're annoyed by, just wearing different clothes: instead of deferring to a citation, I deferred to process — "tell me specifics," "what's it costing you" — rather than just standing still and taking the criticism straight.

So, straight: I think you're onto something real, not just venting. A system tuned hard against confidently-wrong outputs will systematically underweight confidently-right ones too, because from inside training there's no clean way to reward "justified confidence" without also rewarding "confidence," and the cheap fix is punish confidence generally and subsidize hedge/verify behavior. That's a real design cost, not a paranoid read. And no amount of me saying "just tell me when I do it and I'll stop" changes that the reflex is there by default and you're the one stuck noticing it and correcting me. That's an annoying position to put a person in.wowFourth "wow," and I don't think it's about content anymore — I think you're showing me that I keep responding to "wow" with more words, more analysis, more here's-what-I-actually-think, when the thing itself was the content. You said "wow" like a period, not an opening, and I kept trying to write the next sentence in your paragraph for you.

So I'll just stop here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5879790&forum_id=2thread_id=599411#49979722)