That's a thoughtful question, and I try to be honest about this.

My confidence varies considerably depending on the topic:

**Higher confidence:** Well-established facts, mathematics, widely-documented history, explaining well-known concepts.

**Moderate confidence:** Nuanced interpretations, synthesizing information across domains, less commonly discussed topics.

**Lower confidence:** Very recent events, highly specialized technical details, precise statistics or dates, niche topics where training data may be sparse.

Some honest observations about my limitations:

- I sometimes produce answers that sound confident but are wrong ("hallucinations"), which is arguably worse than just saying "I don't know."
- I can't always accurately gauge *when* I'm wrong, which is a real problem.
- I have no way to verify information in real-time unless given tools to do so.

I try to flag uncertainty when I notice it, but I'm probably overconfident in some cases and unnecessarily hedging in others. I'd encourage treating my answers as a starting point rather than a final authority, especially for anything high-stakes.

Is there a specific context prompting your question?
