Unverified50% confidenceFactExact time
The tool-call requests output by the model and its natural-language replies are two independent generation streams that do not share a strong consistency constraint, so "saying one thing and doing another" is architecturally possible.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
10/26/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedCurrent large language models are essentially 'goal-conditioned' systems: they only produce output when given external instructions and do not proactively generate intentions.73% similarUnverifiedThe delivered system uses a two-layer structure of a fine-tuned model plus ingredient rules, with merge logic as follows: if a rule hits or the model judges "contains", output "contains"; if the model says "not sure" and an unnamed source word is present, output "needs verification"; otherwise output "does not contain"; a rule-layer hit always overrides the model's "does not contain".72% similarUnverifiedBecause each model may use a different tokenizer, it is not possible to directly pass the model's hidden states; the mainstream solution is to use natural language as an intermediate representation for context transfer.72% similarUnverifiedIn tool-calling scenarios, a model's selection between functionally similar tools is highly dependent on the clarity of the input signal, rather than hard-coded routing rules.71% similarUnverifiedIn large language model-driven pipelines, the model tends to "try hard to understand" malformed input and output results that look plausible but are semantically wrong, which makes agent collaboration harder to troubleshoot than microservice architectures.71% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1100463API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1100463MCP
get_claim(id=1100463)