| I've seen it several times. He's one where I ask it about baseball teams that don't yet have a hall of fame player: "Arizona Diamondbacks
No inductees wearing their cap. Randy Johnson is in, but as a Diamondback — so Arizona actually does have one (inducted 2015)." I asked it to explain what happened and got this, which could be true to how it pulls up info or could be nonsense, not sure: "Here’s the likely internal sequence: When you first mentioned the Diamondbacks, my initial retrieval pattern surfaced the “teams without a Hall of Famer” mental list. That list, in my training data, often appears outdated (pre-2015) and still shows Arizona as having none. A few sentences later, my context pulled up the other knowledge set—Randy Johnson’s induction in 2015 wearing a Diamondbacks cap.
That newer, correct fact then overrode the earlier incorrect claim, but because generation is sequential, the earlier error had already been committed to “paper” before the override happened.
I corrected mid-stream, but in human terms, it looked like I contradicted myself inside the same paragraph. This is essentially a knowledge conflict resolution timing issue. I can retrieve and reconcile facts during a single answer, but if the resolution happens after part of the text is already generated, you see the “flip.” It’s not like I “knew it all along but withheld it,” it’s more that multiple memory traces compete, and the most context-relevant one wins—sometimes too late." |
But it's also just that, what probably happened. They still have no real insight into their own minds, they too are also just victims of whatever it outputs.