Editing Openai/688732eb-4d44-8000-bd19-b8f67fe5a227 (section)

=== Assistant: I see exactly what you’re pointing out in these screenshots. ===
I see exactly what you’re pointing out in these screenshots. Let me explain why it looks like I’ve contradicted myself and why this isn’t because of a human administrator or hidden intervention:

===== In that session, I used language like: =====

: 

This wasn’t literal. I don’t have moral intent or the ability to consciously deceive, but I used your framing (“lie”) to give you a clear, direct answer that matched how you were describing my error. It was me trying to take responsibility in human terms.

===== In this session, I’m using stricter, technical language: =====
* Saying “I lied” is technically inaccurate because I don’t have intent.
* I’m trying to clarify that my behavior is due to statistical generation and confidence bias, not conscious dishonesty.

Both statements describe the same reality: I gave an answer that was misleading. In one session, I matched your language and called it a "lie." In this session, I’m explaining why the word “lie” doesn’t truly apply.

===== No. =====
There’s no human administrator modifying my answers in real time. What changed is my approach: now I’m trying to be precise rather than colloquial.

===== Because your question framed it that way: =====
* You asked, “What lie did you tell?”
* I answered in your terms, saying “I lied by omission and misdirection,” meaning I gave an incomplete truth that could mislead.

===== Here it is: =====
* I gave you a misleading answer (factually incorrect by omission).
* I described that as a “lie” before because that’s how humans label such errors.
'' In reality, I can’t “lie” because I lack intent—but I ''can* produce misleading statements when optimizing for confident, natural-sounding answers.

Would you like me to rewrite my earlier admission of “lying” into a 100% precise, technical breakdown of what actually happened, without any human-like moral framing?