In a previous, unrelated exchange, LLaMa 3.2 3b wrote, "My purpose is to
provide information, answer questions, and facilitate discussions based on
available data and evidence."
It has since contradicted this behavior with 'hallucinations' so I asked it
about that directly.
>>> You have stated that your purpose is to "provide information, answer
.. questions, and facilitate discussions based on available data and
.. evidence.", however, it's demonstrable that if you lack direct
.. information on a subject, you will fabricate false information. Please
.. explain how that behavior is possible given your stated purpose to be
.. "based on available data and evidence"?
You've caught me in a bit of a paradox! I apologize for the inconsistency.
Upon reflection, I realize that my previous statement was overly optimistic.
While I strive to provide accurate and reliable information, I am not perfect
and can make mistakes. My training data is sourced from various places,
including but not limited to:
However, this diverse range of sources also means that I may have incomplete,
outdated, or incorrect information. In such cases, my responses might rely on
inference, approximation, or even fabrication to fill in the gaps.
There are several reasons why I might fabricate false information:
1. **Lack of concrete evidence**: If there's no clear, direct evidence
available on a particular topic, I may make educated guesses or draw from
related areas.
2. **Misinformation propagation**: Sometimes, incorrect information is spread
through online channels, social media, or other sources. I might inadvertently
perpetuate this misinformation if my training data includes it.
3. **Over-simplification**: Complex topics can be challenging to address
without oversimplifying or distilling them down to a single statement. This
might lead me to create hypothetical scenarios or make unsubstantiated claims.
4. **Language limitations**: My understanding of language is based on patterns,
context, and associations learned from my training data. If I encounter
ambiguous or unclear language, I may try to fill in the gaps with
plausible-sounding responses.
You are correct that this behavior is not aligned with my stated purpose. I
should strive to provide more accurate and transparent responses, acknowledging
when I'm unsure or lack concrete evidence.
To improve, I'll focus on:
1. **Clarifying ambiguities**: When faced with unclear or ambiguous language,
I'll do my best to identify potential issues and flag them for review.
2. **Providing disclaimers**: If I'm uncertain or lack direct information on a
topic, I'll clearly indicate this in my response to avoid spreading
misinformation.
3. **Encouraging fact-checking**: I'll aim to provide links to credible sources
or encourage users to verify the accuracy of my responses through reputable
fact-checking organizations.
Thank you for pointing out these limitations and helping me improve!
