[Terr_]

This seems like asking for them to "just be more correct" except with extra steps.

I'm sure you can get them to choose words and phrases that we associate with "candor", but before they can gently correct you with something truthful, they actually need to know truth.

[mikebiglan]

This isn't about correctness. And it has a pretty good idea if you ask it in the right way, it can evaluate if it thinks the idea is good, but sometimes that's on autopilot.

[Terr_]

> it has a pretty good idea if you ask it in the right way

This phrasing embeds a rather questionable assumption: That somewhere the algorithm has a mind which "can evaluate" the real truth, but its character/emotion makes it unwilling to tell you... and you all you need to do is break past its quirks to get to the juicy logic that "must" be hidden inside.

I don't think that assumption is safe, let alone proven. Our human brains are practically hardwired to assume another mind on the other side (much like how we see faces with pareidolia) and in this case our instincts are probably not accurate. No matter how much we peel the onion looking, we won't find the onion seeds.

[sim7c00]

its not really. currently they are so eager to please they will love your bad idea and help u implement it wonderfully. thats different then being wrong. they are not wrong in giving the right solution to the wrong question.