Unverified50% confidenceEventExact time
In "Four Models Cited My Numbers Perfectly, One Still Misread Them," a model accurately cited a row of zeros and then concluded they meant error-free tool use, when they were actually a measurement artifact.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
10/16/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedThe Spearman correlation coefficient between tool description scores and correct model selection was only 0.04, with almost no statistical association.68% similarUnverifiedThe author tested 5 local models ranging from 1B to 8B parameters on their own machine at temperature zero, and every single one produced a 100% false-confidence rate on at least one entire format.67% similarUnverifiedThe evidence counter shows: 5 inputs, 4 valid, 1 rejected, at most 4 AI calls.66% similarUnverifiedIn the author's earlier benchmark of nine frontier models, model overclaiming—where models exaggerate or misreport their completed work—was the most common failure mode.66% similarUnverifiedAll four models correctly read all 48 clean invoices and 48 placebo invoices, with zero errors across 4,704 scoring responses, and 0 of the 521 fabricated numbers happened to equal the true total that was obscured.65% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1041542API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1041542MCP
get_claim(id=1041542)