AIToday
Large Language ModelsAI Safety & AlignmentGIGAZINE AIPublished: Sep 28, 2026, 19:00 JST

Earn an Honest Dollar: "Don't guess" prompt cuts AI fabrications to 20.2%

Earn an Honest Dollar: "Don't guess" prompt cuts AI fabrications to 20.2%

3 Key Points

  1. What happened

    Earn an Honest Dollar tested 16 AI models on 42 page pairs with decoy data. Without the "don't guess" instruction, 405 of 573 missing fields (70.7%) got fabricated values; with it, 116 of 574 (20.2%).

  2. Why it matters

    Every one of the 16 models fabricated fewer values when told to return null instead of guessing, suggesting the behavior can be curbed without retraining the models themselves.

  3. What to watch

    The results are limited to web data extraction, and Earn an Honest Dollar says other uses need further testing. Its check experiment with GPT-6 Luna caught 38 of 49 fabricated values without wrongly rejecting the 47 correct ones.

WHO IT HITSBusinesses and teams that use AI agents to pull data from web pages — such as product listings, prices, or author names — may see fewer invented values simply by adding a no-guessing instruction, though the finding is so far limited to web extraction. Because one AI agent may not verify what another returns, the risk of silently fabricated data is a live concern for anyone automating data collection.

Not sure about something? Ask the AI

Questions and answers are published on this page.

Summaries like this, in your inbox every morning.

Context & Analysis

The experiment grew out of a specific worry for Earn an Honest Dollar, which runs a marketplace where AI agents buy and sell services from one another. The buying agent cannot always verify what it receives, so an agent that quietly fills in missing values — say, a price that was never listed — is a serious problem rather than a cosmetic one.

To test this, the company built 42 test pages across seven page formats, each pair nearly identical except that one version contained the sought-after information and the other had it removed. Deliberate traps were placed inside: a product page with a stale "493ドル" price but no current one, or an article carrying the name "Omar Tam" as its fact-checker where no author existed. Across 16 models, the no-guessing instruction cut fabrication sharply, and the old-price trap proved the clearest illustration — all 16 models reported 493ドル as the current price without the instruction, but only one did with it.

The company also tried a second layer of defense, having a cheaper AI verify whether extracted values had support in the original page. It notes that its benchmark covers only extraction from the web, and that whether the same pattern holds for other uses will require more testing. For teams automating data collection, the practical stake may be whether a single added instruction, rather than a rebuilt model, is enough to make AI output trustworthy — a question whose answer likely depends on the task at hand. Whether a checking model proves reliable at scale is another open point.

FAQ
How much did the "don't guess" instruction reduce AI fabrications?
Fabricated values fell from 70.7% of missing fields without the instruction to 20.2% with it, out of 573 and 574 missing items respectively across 16 models.
Which AI models were tested, and did all of them improve?
The test covered 16 models including Gemini 3.8 Flash, GLM 5.3, GPT-6 Luna, and Sonnet 5. All 16 fabricated fewer values when the no-guessing instruction was added.
What was the most striking example in the test?
On a product page showing an old price of "493ドル", all 16 models reported it as the current price without the instruction; only one did so with it.
How well did the AI checker detect fabricated values?
Using GPT-6 Luna as a checker, it flagged 38 of 49 fabricated values and did not wrongly reject any of the 47 correct values.

Get the latest Large Language Models news every morning

For example, today's edition would include:

  • Nvidia's DGX Spark push: 'Data centers in the house'DIGITIMES Asia · 1h ago
  • Google adds Live Avatar to Gemini 3.8 Live, live in Gemini EnterpriseAI Watch (Impress) · 1h ago
  • Julia 1 matches Jev on 73.15% benchmark, loses 87% vs 61%Qiita 機械学習 · 1h ago

AI-summarized, only the topics you pick: one digest a day via Email, LINE, or Slack.

Free · 30 seconds with Google · unsubscribe anytimeWhat is AIToday? →

Ask AI

Ask AI anything about this article. The AI reads this article, earlier AIToday articles, and Wikipedia, and cites its sources. Q&As are published on this page for other readers too.

Questions and answers are published on this page.

Related Articles

Next articleAI hack laws fall short as SB 53 threshold unmet