Haven't gotten to try it yet but that'd be a breath of fresh air. Too used to LLMs flip flopping at the slightest hint of challenge.

I always appreciate when a model does that. It's amusing, but also having it be argumentatively wrong is a lot less annoying than being sycophantically wrong.

I much prefer that for chat, but I'm somewhat worried that we shouldn't give tool-enabled agents an attitude. It's all roleplay, and I wouldn't want a system playing the role of an annoyed assistant to misuse its tools.

Reminds me of early test versions of Gemini Flash 2.0 (or was it 1.5?). It would argue something, try to prove itself right, realize it’s proof is agreeing with the user halfway through and, instead of admitting defeat, would backtrack to try another approach. So much fun.

It could be the system prompt

Eh, there's good and bad. The model mostly sticks to prevailing narratives in the training corpus. So if there is something that the prevailing narrative is really wrong about, it's gonna be just as pig-headed about it as a typical internet forum rando.