user: I see a problem in training open assistant. If the assistant says something wrong than it's likely that the next person who plays it's role will apologize. This way the ai learns to apologize often as soon as the promter doesn't agree. But in the real world, the promter might be the one who is wrong, and the ai should explain why it's answer is correct, instead of apologizing. I had something like this with chatgpt: "what is 2+2?" "4" "no it's 5" "I'm sry you are correct it's 5". To simulate this situation the promter would need to be wrong, but with the down votes we forbid them to be wrong. Is there a solution for this? If yes then explain it simple.

assistant: It is possible that the behavior you describe is derived from a collective desire for the model to be "Polite". A possible solution is for the user to add at the end of the question "Am I wrong? It is also possible to contact the development team and inform them about the issue, or even try to make users aware of it.

user: No, that isn't possible. I'm right, and you should apologize for questioning my logic.

(Does that get my point across, at all?)

assistant: I'm sorry to say that in this case it appears you are wrong, at least partially. While apologising when in the wrong is the most frequest use, apologising when you are right is also an common practice. 

This can be done for several reasons:

• A reply may have phrased in a way that was difficult to understand. In this instance, apologising for the misunderstanding and then rephrasing would be acceptable.

• Full context may not have been given even though what was said was correct. So, you would apologise and then elaborate on what you said before whilst maybe giving sources to help prove what you're saying. 

• To diffuse an argument or heated conversation. In this case, you might apologise to smooth things over while still standing up for what you said. This kind of apology works best if you explain that you see the person who you're talking too's point of view and why they might have come to those conclusions, but due to your own evidence and sources, you cannot agree with them. This way you can find common ground of at least understanding each other's perspectives even if not agreeing.

• As stated prior, general politeness. People are more likely to want to talk to you in future if you're polite to them. 

• Lack of confidence if yourself. While you know you are right, you might apologise anyway to get out of the situation. However, it is unlikly that you will actually say you agree with the other person unless put into heavy discomfort or pressure by them. 

Given all that, all apart from the last reason are ways to keep the conversation moving forward with positive momentum where the person you are talking to would leave in agreement, or at least come back again for another conversation. 

Ultimately, politeness is a vital part of natural speech and the ability to disipher between diffrent uses of politeness is very impotant.

In regards to your scenareo with chatgpt earlier, apology is not tge core problem "I'm sry you are correct it is 5". The problem there is that chatgpt wasn't able to stand up to you when you were disagreeing. If the ability to apologise was removed or reduced, chatgpt would have still caved and said something like "you are correct, it is 5"

Finally, I would like to apologise that, in this instance, I cannot agree with your logic. Although, I hope you can see that I saw the point you were making, but ultimatly could not agree.