AI LLM Science

Case A0842A65-9278-4AAB-87C3-6B18AD14BEBE
Sponsor: Robert Thibadeau

  • Status

    State
    Next Steps
    Case Date
    Watch Video
    Jurors Accepted
    Juror Verdicts Finalized

    The details, verdicts, and comments within this case record come from its participants. The Court's role is solely to facilitate the case process.

    Copyright © 2022-2025 Bright Plaza, Inc., All Rights Reserved. No one may publish a case, or any part of it, without a clear reference to the link with the case number as in https://www.truthcourt.net/case/<case-id-number>

  • Details

    Name
    Category
    URL
    Accusation
    Lie Truth
     
    Argument

  • Verdicts

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    It is never factually the truth. Enforced moderated dialogue can get closer to making it true for the two people, but not for a new person who has not had the dialogue.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Not true. I believe the expert in this case.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I understand the intention of the article. I believe we are probably misunderstanding what understanding means. Each person may see different repercussions or intentions of the content of a statement, the connections to and from pasts and futures, but this does not mean that the raw meaning of the statement has not been transferred without degradation or elaboration.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    no

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I hope I can understand what Bob explains today.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    It is never factually the truth. Enforced moderated dialogue can get closer to making it true for the two people, but not for a new person who has not had the dialogue.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Natural language is too ambiguous and sentences often allow for multiple interpretations. Obviously context is important but in an average setting there’s nothing stopping the person listening from interpreting what the speaker is saying in a different way.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The formal set theory analysis tells the whole truth to this lie.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    formal set theory analysis presented in the video defines the science of AI Natural Language Processing and how human brains communicate and align, as the formal basis for the Internet Court of Truth and Lies,

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I have a lot of problems with set analysis. Suffice to say that artificial confinements to data that is classifying grammatical objects like nouns and Prepositions into various collections don’t cover the whole case of the transfer of meaning. My own simplified theory similar to set theory where memories as distinct to predicates are stored in a frame and series of ,lists rather than sets works better as a means of identifying where the essentials of meaning ( and incidentally, lies) sit within language. Lists contain actions as well as objects which set theory separates out into different categories, which immediately poses the problem of how the whole meaning gets transferred.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I hope I can understand what Bob explains today.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The formal set theory analysis tells the whole truth to this lie.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    If you take a philosophical standpoint you’d see that it’s almost never guaranteed that a sentence would be interpreted the same way between two people. We all think differently.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The formal set theory analysis tells the whole truth to this lie.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    People all the time believe this can be true. We see this in the media where people think if they say more words people will understand what they are talking about better. But that never works.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    People all the time believe this can be true. We see this in the media where people think if they say more words people will understand what they are talking about better. But that never works.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    They also say things louder when they feel they are not understood. Not sure the proposition here makes sense. People often add more words without adding more framing which gives overall significance to the whole. But this only suggests that the exchange is in a situation prior to meaning being transferred, not that a different meaning has been transferred. People learning languages don’t tend to add more words where their meaning is getting confused, they search for the right words. Polemics is an artificial debating system where words are not designed to convey truth so much as to convey righteousness. In this case more words somehow suggests a dominating position but without having an actual value.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    People all the time believe this can be true. We see this in the media where people think if they say more words people will understand what they are talking about better. But that never works.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    People all the time believe this can be true. We see this in the media where people think if they say more words people will understand what they are talking about better. But that never works.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The perception that another person has of the world also plays a role into their understanding.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Agree with the plaintiff statement

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The lie is not a lie. Certainly stuff gets misunderstood but that may be errors in the medium. I assert that there is a core to understanding reaching into the brain of the recipient before personal adjustments and episodic experiences are applied to it.

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    People who believe this lie really think it is the truth because they misunderstand how the human brain works.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I don't think the lie is intended.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    There are other options. I think there is a different way to consider how understandings work. There are different modes but principally there is only understanding between two people when they both are in contact with the future in which the information in the understanding exists. When people misunderstand each other this is because their individual world lines lose congruence at some point in the near future.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I cannot tell whether this is intended

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    People who believe this lie really think it is the truth because they misunderstand how the human brain works.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    People who believe this lie really think it is the truth because they misunderstand how the human brain works.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 75 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to convince you that if you allow someone to just talk about something everybody will understand him/her. That never happens.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to convince you that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The lie motivates us to grasp the true meaning of understanding. .
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The argument that it is not true that speaker and listener do not share the same understanding is false when a broader picture of communication is considered. Messages are composed with a symbol system and all the relative statistics of those symbols. The recipient must possess those same statistics in order to understand the message. These have to be sent ahead of time for communication to be possible. A message composed with all the statistics however will contain only past meanings. For a brain to compose a fresh new creative message there can be no understanding because the new set of statistics employed in the idea cannot be transmitted prior to its invention. Thus no new ideas can be understood unless there is a connection to the future where the mutual understanding exists.

    Answer:
    I'm not sure what the motivation is.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to convince you that if you allow someone to just talk about something everybody will understand him/her. That never happens.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to convince you that if you allow someone to just talk about something everybody will understand him/her. That never happens.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to convince you that if you allow someone to just talk about something everybody will understand him/her. That never happens.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I believe everyone should understand the need for enforced moderated dialogue whenever a communication is important to the speaker/writer.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I agree with the Plaintiff/Mod on this.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I agree with the plaintiff. However, Moderated dialogue may not unify divergent world lines.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 95 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I believe everyone should understand the need for enforced moderated dialogue whenever a communication is important to the speaker/writer.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is factually untrue.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is factually untrue.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is factually untrue.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This accusation is possibly true in certain evolutionary positive circumstances.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Teleology is the way to go.

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is factually untrue.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is factually untrue.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text: