Gees

Studiot: I am not going to be able to finish this thread with you. It has been interesting, but someone has already decided to use the click-it option to down vote me to show me that I am wrong. They neutralized the point you gave me, and once the click-it club starts, they can too easily shred a reputation. It is very difficult for a philosopher to gain respectability in this science forum, so I have decided not to play. I will leave you with some information that may help you to understand the issues as I see them. First it is not fact v truth, it is fact v truth(s) as there are different kinds of truth. The first, emotional truth, was what I was trying to demonstrate with the bucket analogy. Emotional truth is fluid, it moves, it changes, which is why science does not trust it. This is not true for all truth, just emotional truth. I remember this really big hill that we played on by my home when I was about five years old. One day I went back to the old neighborhood and looked for it. When I finally found it, I was shocked as it was only about three foot tall -- not the huge hill I remembered. Have you ever thought you loved someone, who was beautiful/handsome, then broke up? And years later saw them again and realized that they are not even goodlooking? There can be many examples, but the point is that emotional memory changes your perception over time of what is real and what happened. Psychology knows this and give us about 24 hours before it expects changes to start occurring. So if you have an incident at work, you may be required to fill out an incident report within 24 hours. If you are in a trauma situation, hostage, war, etc., you will be asked to participate in a debriefing as soon as possible -- before you reinterpret the experience. This can be a problem in law if it takes weeks or months before you are required to identify the suspect. Of if you think you have had a paranormal experience, write down what you think happened immediately. Putting this information into writing digitalizes the memory and makes it static -- no longer fluid. This is good because you stop the mind from corrupting the actual account of what happened, it is also bad because it limits what you know about the experience unless you are a very good writer. You might look at the following Ted Talk about emotional memory, which I found very informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNuARPcb5FA I also went into the archived files and found a thread I wrote many years ago that categorized some of my ideas on truth. I did not know about emotional truth at that time, so it is not listed. You may find it interesting: I had not yet determined that emotion is real, so there is no reference to Emotional truths. Please note that I was not looking to find truths, but looking to categorize and rate as to reliability the truths that I understood. So please consider: Like all philosophers, I have spent a lot of time contemplating "truth", and find it to be illusive. Truth is not an absolute, so THE truth, or absolute truth, or ultimate truth, is illusion or idealism. Truth is a reflection of reality, and it is necessary to understand it in order to acquire knowledge; but it is not static, it is forever changing as reality is forever changing. Some truths seem to be more stable however; so, I broke truth into categories of reliability: Simple Truth, Conceptual Truth, Acceptable Truth, Common Truth, Classic Truth, and Philosopher's Truth. These have become my measures of truth. Simple truth is the opposite of false and/or lies. This category of truth is very transient and can turn false rather quickly. An example is; I am alive--truth, but it may not be truth in an hour. So this truth is only relative to the "now" of whenever the truth was made or told. Conceptual truth is truth that has been designated and agreed upon, and as such it is a very reliable truth. Examples of this kind of truth are measurements, numbers, maths, directions, language, etc. But then true north adjusts itself, gallons are now liters, and inches are centimeters, so this truth can also change. One aspect of Conceptual truth that is convenient, is that whatever breaks an established truth also usually supplies the material needed to recreate a better truth, so it is still very reliable. Acceptable truth is truth that can be verified in at least three different ways, preferably from three different kinds of perspectives and is an objective truth. This truth requires evidence and is commonly used by science, Courts, and people in general to establish a truth. An example; What if I saw a poisonous snake on my couch? It looks like a snake, I am afraid, but it does not make sense to my mind because poisonous snakes do not live in my area. I do not accept this truth that is offered to me, I check. I watch the snake or throw something at it to see if it is a snake or one of my grandson's toys, then follow up that test with the appropriate action after I have discovered an acceptable truth. Most science falls under the category of acceptable truth. This does not mean that acceptable truth can not change, as it can and does, science often revises their own truths (facts) to make more acceptable truths when they discover more information. Acceptable truth is more than just "now"; it is a truth that can be relied upon for the foreseeable future. What I can not accept as Acceptable truth is a "truth" that is established through only one kind of perspective, as this can too easily be falsehood. An example would be a truth based solely on mental deliberations, no matter how logical those deliberations are, they are likely to be rationalization rather than truth. An example of the physical would be something like statistics, no matter how valid, the interpretation can be invalid. An example of spiritual would be a belief in anything that has nothing to support it, as that would look like opinion to me. To be an Acceptable truth, I would need to have some kind of corroborating evidence from another kind of perspective--preferably three perspectives. Example: The police find two people dead at a table, both shot with the same gun, and the gun in the hand of one of them. Many people would accept that one person shot the other, then themself. But I would want a motive for the shooting and a witness that could state that there were not three people originally at that table. Common truth is truth that is common to about 90% of a category of people. It is a subjective truth and must be treated as such. There are some philosophers and scientists, who believe that there is no such thing as subjective truth--that is not so. Common truth is knowledge or behavior shared by people who share a commonality, and can include; who people are, what people are, where people live, and common experiences of people. It should be considered that people's Common truths are intermingled as two people can be religious and nonreligious, employer and employee, single and married, but both share the same illness giving them a commonality. So why is Common truth worthy of consideration? Because Common truths can give us knowledge and understanding that could only be otherwise acquired by being all things and knowing all things. Since none of us are God, that is an impossibility, so we acquire truth, knowledge, and understanding where we can find it. Example: Most babies will study the image of a face, whether real or cartoon; this is a Common truth. If your baby does not, it may be of no consequence, but it may also be a good idea to check out baby's vision and/or watch for signs of Autism. There is a danger in viewing Common truth in an objective manner. One can not assume that because a person is a child that they will want to play with another person who is also a child, or that one person who is an employee will identify with another person who is an employee. Common truth is subjective, to view commonality in an objective manner is to walk a path that can lead straight into the ignorance of prejudice. Common truth is also transient and lasts only as long as the commonality, but the knowledge obtained through the commonality is valid and can be viewed objectively. So Common truth can give us information, facts, knowledge, and understanding that can be relied upon as truth for the foreseeable future. Classic truth is just what it sounds like--classic. Whether common or acceptable, these truths have survived as truth for five hundred to a thousand years, and so they are classic truth. Classic truth is no more reliable than Acceptable or Common truth, but it does have the test of time on it's side, so to overturn Classic truth, one needs to have more proof than would be required to overturn an Acceptable or Common truth. Hope this helps you to understand truth. I apologize to anyone who expected a response from me. Gee

So is it your opinion that facts are valid and truth is not? It is my opinion that facts are often irrelevant. I saw that request and reviewed that thread. I found truths that are not fact, and facts that are not true. So I think it would be a waste of time to try to show you something that you refuse to see. You just want to argue. Gee

This is nonsensical. Who do you think has been 'bewitched'? You are not making any sense here. You seem to think that I should not have used the word "truth" above. Why not? In each statement I would have corrupted the meaning if I used the word, true. To be precise is kind of important in philosophy, not like your example where you copied my response to The Vat and instead credited it as an anwer Studiot. I did not write the above to Studiot. Yes. This is true and it is also a fact. This is not true and is not a fact. It is opinion and maybe conjecture. This is true and is also a fact. You can say that if you are happy with lying. Since no one here has done this, I suppose you are projecting as I see no other source that would cause this comment. Gee You and I do not agree on many things, but I must say that you do understand the differences between facts and truths, probably better than anyone else here. +1 Gee What I am talking about here is an understanding of shared, subjective, reality. It has nothing to do with good or bad, with right or wrong, or with truths or lies. It is just a shared reflection of subjective reality. Because it is a true reflection of other people's emotional perspective, or as close as one can get. What do you feel when you listen to a marching band? Most people feel energized, motivated, looking for a goal -- then the speaker comes on a gives you that goal -- or its incorporated into the lyrics of the music. Politicians and religious leaders have been using music, dance, and art for centuries to lead where they want the people to go. Why do you think that Trump keeps hi-jacking writers music to play at his conventions and speeches? If you can not understand how emotion works, you can not understand truth. You can deny that emotion has anything to do with truth, but you will be wrong -- experience plus emotion equals belief, which is the foundation of knowledge. Gee

No. This implies that truth and fact are only here to validate the existence of statements -- it is the other way around. Both truths and facts existed prior to language and validate reality as we know it. Truths and facts construct and recreate reality through language, so that the information can be shared. Or partially true, or mostly true, or occasionally true, or seldom true, or true now, etc. Gee I have never heard the terms 'global' and 'local' applied to facts and truths. I like it and will use this idea. +1 Gee Good point. +1 Gee Again. You and Studiot are talking about statements, not about truths. You are implying that nothing was real or true prior to language. Does a deaf mute not know reality? not know truth? Do species without language not know reality? Your philosophy will get lost if you can not separate language from reality. You see what I underlined in your post? (statement is true) This is again about a statement. In another forum, I was talking to a working neurologist, who explained this idea to me. He said, "You wake up in the morning in bed. The sun is up. The bed is situated so that you can reach the floor. You get out of bed. The next morning it happens again, then again, then again. You begin to be comforted by this familiar routine. This emotion, comfort, causes you to believe that this is good and right, which you now take as knowledge. If you wake up without the sun or the bed, your knowledge will tell you that something is very wrong. So, experience plus emotion causes belief, which leads to knowledge, which we confirm with fact. Was it truth before we confirmed it as such? Yes. Experience plus emotion causes belief which becomes knowledge. Now it can be disputed by fact, but until it is, it is true. Gee Agree with the underlined. This is how we knew that witches were real, then we tested them with fire and drowning to prove it. Culture has a great deal to do with truth. +1 Gee

I agree with Studiot that English is a very accomplished language; but also agree with MigL that it is frustrating. Most of the posters in this thread have used language to try to describe the differences between fact and truth, and I think this is part of the problem. Fact and truth are different in their very natures, and although fact can be described by words and language, truth does not lend itself to language. So when we digitalize truth into language, we have already corrupted it. To explain this, imagine that you have two buckets, one is entitled 'facts' and the other is entitled 'truths'. The 'facts' bucket is filled with sand and the 'truths' bucket is filled with water. If I ask you to take nine facts out of the 'facts' bucket, you can count out nine grains of sand. But if I ask you to take nine truths out of the 'truths' bucket, what can you do to ensure that you get whole truths and nothing extra? Truth is fluid, so it does not digitalize and does not easily convert to language. Digital facts are thoughts and can be converted into specific words. Fluid truths are emotions and experiences and do not convert well into specific words. Yes we can use words like love, hate, and fear, but these words to not truly convey the feeling. The old expression, "walk a mile in my shoes" tells us that the words we use to explain emotions and experiences just do not cut it. So how do we take subjective fluid truths (emotions and experiences) and convey them to another person without the benefit of words? We use music, dance, art, and poetry. Through music, dance, and art, we can feel what others feel, and through poetry, we can compare and relate to similar situations and experiences. Gee

Which is why it is my position that ignoring truth is a very good way to corrupt fact. Earlier in this thread, I explained that I personally knew of two different situations (although there are more than two) where statistics (facts) were gathered without benefit of truth. No. It is asking for the 'whole truth' and 'nothing but the truth'. Law is ancient, thousands of years old, and probably older than written language, so it has had lots of experience in understanding truth, and knowing that truth can be partial, and that it differs from different perspectives, and is even different at different times. When it asks for 'nothing but the truth' it is demanding no additional misinformation. What do you get when you rebuild the 'partial' truths, consider truth from all available perspectives, and understand its meaning through time? You get wisdom, known as advanced truth, and that is what the Court is looking for. No. To be PROVEN true, there must be facts. But you are not talking about truths; you are talking about statements. Without evidence, truth does not become fact. It either remains true, or it becomes speculation -- at best -- or it becomes lies, dreams, hallucinations, mental instability, etc. I am forever hearing about Kant in science forums. One would think he is the only philosopher. I suspect that the reason is that Kant was a bit of a science guy himself, so science types relate to him. If you trace back the ideas of 'analytic truth' and 'synthetic truth' what you get is a study of language, not a study of truth. It is an argument about language and semantics. Granted, he is trying to prove truth, but his argument is useless because it is after the fact -- truth is already boxed and corrupted by semantics before he begins to study it. You can think of it like you would processed food, which looks good, tastes good, and is satisfying. But it doesn't give you the nutrition that you expect and this shows over time. Once truth is processed into fact, then incorporated into statistics, it is so processed that there is little truth left. How can you know what "key facts were missing". How can you prove a negative? This can't be done. Maybe I lied. It is not a fact -- prove it. "statements"? Language and semantics not truths. Gee

On 6/6/2026 at 12:59 AM, Gees said: It is surprising to see how many people do not really differentiate between policy/procedure in business and what is law, and there is a huge difference. Yes, big business, powerful people, big money, and even small dealings like when you are told that you have to do something because it is policy -- implying that it is law. On 6/6/2026 at 12:59 AM, Gees said: Although I enjoy philosophy, I rarely post in the Ethics subforum. Thank you for writing an interesting thread. I can see why you might have a problem with this subject, but think you made a good choice. At some point Studiot expressed an opinion (which I seem to have lost) that my obsession with statistics had little to do with this thread, and I responded as follows: On 6/6/2026 at 12:59 AM, Gees said: But statistics have everything to do with AI, and how AI affects legal matters is what this thread is about. To my mind, this means that statistics have a great deal to do with this thread and its legal matters. Probably, but there is also a lot that is similar. I was taught that forty-nine States derived their legal systems from British law -- only Louisiana derived their system from French law, but now there is very little noticeable difference between the States. We also have criminal law and civil law. Yes. Criminal law deals mostly with fines, tickets, and 'go to jail free' cards. Civil law deals mostly with family law, juvenile law, Wills and trusts, contracts, and of course tort actions (law suits). I am not familiar with the term, 'balance of probabilities'. We have 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or 99%, 'clear and convincing evidence' or 75%, and 'a preponderance of evidence' more that half. Most civil cases are judged by the last one, a preponderance. There are actually four levels, the last one states not enough to convict, but I can't remember the exact terminology. MS and maybe a little dementia is kicking my ass or my head. California is often the first in the States to enact new laws/principals. In other States, I suspect it is much like British law. At present. Law is foundational -- it builds and develops over time. Do you think that three or four hundred years ago, a corporation would be considered a legal person? When did corporations become legal persons? In the US, a board of directors can make a decision that causes a corporation to get sued, but the board members lose nothing -- they can hide behind the 'legal person' corporation. Are we looking at a future where people can hide behind AI? I am not an attorney. I only trained to become a paralegal, but tracing the development of law was a big part of the job. On 5/17/2026 at 6:32 AM, studiot said: Gees has a sample size of 1, but swansont is considering very large sample sizes. On 6/6/2026 at 12:59 AM, Gees said: If you tell a lie one time or a thousand times, does that make a difference in the veracity of the lie? Does the number make a difference in the veracity of truth? I seem to remember a quote, "If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will begin to believe it." Does that make the lie a truth? Maybe it makes the lie a fact? Absolutely. Mathematically, you are reclining in the penthouse, and I am digging in the root cellar. But the above was not about math, it was about veracity (truth). Can a lie turn into a fact simply because it is repeated enough times? History says it can. If so, then AI, with its hugh numbers of statistics, but no subjective experience, can not be trusted enough to be a player in Court. On 6/6/2026 at 12:59 AM, Gees said: You walk into a room and see me standing over a dead body. A man has been shot and I am standing there with a gun in my hand. Worse yet, the dead body is from a man that I despise and everyone knows it. Six months later, it is a fact that I am a convicted murdered, and it is the truth that I have never killed anyone. I picked up the gun off of the floor because I was stupid with shock, but instinctively I knew that guns are dangerous and there are children about. Facts require truth in order to be facts, but truths do not require facts in order to be true. This is why science has been called a child of philosophy, but philosophy has never been called a child of science. In a future world. Law is foundational -- it builds on its principals and foundations. If it builds badly, it becomes corrupt, then often the country that makes those laws collapses. You mentioned that many countries got their law from British law, but do you know where Britain got it from? In another forum -- a few years ago, I was discussing law with a Professor, who taught law. We were discussing the fact that witnesses are required to convict someone of murder, and he told me that up until the seventeenth century, only one witness was required to convict someone of murder in Britain. He did not know why the law changed, but I suggested that it might have something to do with King James. The King James Bible came out in the seventeenth century, and I am sure that the good King had people all over the country copying his new Bible. It seems likely that they noticed in Deuteronomy (one of the Books of Law) that it specifically requires at least two witnesses to convict someone of murder. The rational thinking being that one person might have an agenda and be lying, so it is better to have two or more. Now it is possible that the timing of this change in law is just coincidence, but I don't put too much store in coincidence. It may still be true that two witnesses are required in the US, but one of those witnesses could be, and often is, forensic science. Is it possible that AI could be a witness at some point in the future? I don't see why not. On 6/6/2026 at 12:59 AM, Gees said: Facts require truth in order to be facts, but truths do not require facts in order to be true. This is why science has been called a child of philosophy, but philosophy has never been called a child of science. Dimreeper responded as follows: Not at all, facts requires faith for us to accept them, truth is just waiting for us to prove it wrong, again... OK This is not as complicated as you are thinking. Truth is subjective. Fact is objective. Without facts, truth is unknowable except by the person experiencing it, as it could be dreams, imagining, delusion, etc. Facts are required to make truths knowable. Without truth, facts are unknowable because without truth/experience facts have no context in and of themselves. We see this routinely with AI when the data/facts/information is out of context, and AI's response becomes absurd. This idea was brought up in your other thread in Speculations about AI and context. So truths are required to make facts knowable. It should also be considered that something that is objective is so because a lot of subjective people agreed to it. Objectivity exists because of the subjective. Also consider that eliminating the subjective (truth) from knowledge has other consequences. Honor can not exist without subjectivity. Integrity does not exist without subjectivity. Sincerity does not exist without subjectivity. Nobility does not exist without subjectivity. If you remove honor, integrity, sincerity, and nobility, you also remove innocence and open knowledge up to corruption and cherry picking and manipulation of facts. So, yes, I think that facts and truths are most definitely interdependent. Gee

It was a great movie, wasn't it? Captain Sully had worked in investigations before, so he knew the ropes and knew how to get his case heard. He watched the simulations and then noted that there was no time allotted for decision making. The engines failed and the simulation pilot immediately returned to the airport, which is unrealistic. One needs to assess, analyze, and make a decision, which takes some time. The investigators agreed and added 35 seconds to the flight simulator's time for decision, which caused crash after crash. Just 35 seconds between life and death. It should be noted that at some point, the airlines are going to look at the 35 seconds and the million? billion? dollars worth of airplane. Then they are going to decide that human error is expensive. In truth the original simulations were invalid because no one is going to turn a plane around before they even know what is wrong and decide to turn the plane around. It made me wonder how many pilots in prior cases were judged to make a "pilot error" because of unrealistic simulations. Anyone can view the Captain's defense in a 20 minute short on YouTube under Sully / A Captain's Defense. Gee Truthiness and factiness are not two different teams in competition with each other. Anyone who does not know that is really dumb. Both truths and facts are required in philosophy, but maybe you don't think so. Tell my why. Gee

Spoken like a true science guy. Yes, facts are dependent on their truth value, but are truths dependent on facts? No. Instead of arguing this forever, I will give you an example so you can understand my position. You walk into a room and see me standing over a dead body. A man has been shot and I am standing there with a gun in my hand. Worse yet, the dead body is from a man that I despise and everyone knows it. Six months later, it is a fact that I am a convicted murdered, and it is the truth that I have never killed anyone. I picked up the gun off of the floor because I was stupid with shock, but instinctively I knew that guns are dangerous and there are children about. Facts require truth in order to be facts, but truths do not require facts in order to be true. This is why science has been called a child of philosophy, but philosophy has never been called a child of science. Gee

Actually, I don't think it does. I used that word because I was responding to Ken Fabian, who used that word. In law and in philosophy (which are both relevant in this thread), the word, opinion, is often used to name the conclusion that is reached, so Fabian was not really wrong in using it. But you are also correct in questioning the use of the word, opinion, by something that does not have a subjective conclusion. IMO Gee Agreed -- AI is too vague of a description. I tend to see simulations, AI, and LLM chatboxes, as different levels of the same thing. Simulations are kindergartners, AI is school age, and LLM chatboxes are working toward a degree. Since you are a detail person, I am sure that you can produce reams of information showing how they are different, but don't bother unless you can show me that they are not objective. As that is where I am drawing the line in this thread. I don't like to see any kind of manufactured conclusions working their way into law and the Courts. Gee

I agree. Right now, AI is not so much a problem in the Courts as it is in making policy and procedure IMO. It is surprising to see how many people do not really differentiate between policy/procedure in business and what is law, and there is a huge difference. All businesses, whether private or government, have policies and procedures that regulate everyday work, and AI is beginning to be the go to expert that defines these policies and procedures. Then media reinforces the belief that AI is expert, which lays the foundation for AI to infiltrate law. A lot of people have explained that AI is being trained and learning to be better at its work, but I think there is more to this. I think we are also being trained, or maybe you could say that we are being groomed, to accept AI as expert. This made me smile. Generally speaking, the purpose of cross examination is to ferret out the lies, but AI does not actually lie, so this seems pretty meaningless. I started to envision a Disney type movie where AI would cross examine AI and it was a lot of fun in my mind, but I am not sure how that could really work in reality. In order to come up with different 'testimony' from different AI opinions, I believe that different statistics, or additional information, would have to be fed into some of the AI programs. Otherwise the 'testimony' would be the same. Have you had the opportunity to see the movie, "Sully"? It is a true story that addresses this AI expert opinion problem. In the movie, Sully, Captain Sullenberger, is a commercial airline pilot with over 40 years of flying experience, who takes off from the airport and within minutes loses his engines. He manages to land his plane in the Hudson river saving all passengers, but losing the plane. Air traffic control wanted him to turn the plane around and return to the airport, and AI confirmed that that was the best solution, but Sully argued that his experience told him that he would never make it and everyone would have died. Tom Hanks plays Captain Sully and Clint Eastwood directs this true story. I remember reading about it in the paper when it happened 20 or so years ago and remember that Captain Sully almost lost his job, but his experience knew something that AI had not considered, which won his case. Gee Although I enjoy philosophy, I rarely post in the Ethics subforum. Thank you for writing an interesting thread. But statistics have everything to do with AI, and how AI affects legal matters is what this thread is about. To my mind, this means that statistics have a great deal to do with this thread and its legal matters. That would be because I am dealing in truths; whereas, Swansont is dealing in facts. Although facts can help one find truth, fact is not truth. Did you ever hear of a Court of law asking for, "The whole fact and nothing but the facts?" If you tell a lie one time or a thousand times, does that make a difference in the veracity of the lie? Does the number make a difference in the veracity of truth? I seem to remember a quote, "If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will begin to believe it." Does that make the lie a truth? Maybe it makes the lie a fact? Which "legal responsibility"? When you started this thread, you appeared to be considering how a Court would judge AI, but it now appears that you are talking about writing laws. Although both have "legal responsibilities", they are very different considerations and processes. When creating law, one must consider a large populace, and so, they often look to facts and large sample sizes so the law will be best for most of the populace. In a Court of law, it is the singular truths that are being judged about an individual or circumstance. Very different. No matter which responsibility you are considering, truth is required to consider it. Why? Because wisdom is required and wisdom is an advanced level of truth. It is not an advanced level of facts -- that would be statistics. That is about control and how we use AI to regulate the citizens; and therefore, what responsibility AI companies have to the citizenry. Gee

On 1/20/2026 at 3:14 PM, Gees said: (In response to Swansont's belief that seatbelts save lives.) Maybe. I have driven all over the United States, in Europe, on the right side of the road and on the other side, in cars, trucks, rental vehicles, and on motorcycles. I have towed cars, trailers, boats, and campers, but I do not wear seatbelts and have not for most of my life. Yet, I am not dead. It is possible that statistically speaking, seatbelts are not good for me. 😁 I know that you are intelligent. Maybe that is why I am forever giving you more credit than is apparently warranted. I will try to explain my "crappy" argument. The things listed above are not only about me, they are circumstances that have been researched and found to contribute to accidents -- statistically speaking. Driving on different terrains, like a Michigan flatlander driving down Franklin mountain to meet Highway 10 in El Paso, Texas, with snow on the road (which generally causes a pile up of cars). Or crossing the Rockies pulling a camper, especially after turning onto steep side roads. Or driving in Ireland on the other side of the road, and having the steering wheel on the other side of the car, and using the gear shift with the left hand because it is also backward, then trying to avoid the stone walls that closely edge many of the roads. Of course, driving in downtown Rome at night when they turned all the stop lights into blinking yellow lights both ways was interesting. It took a while to figure out how to cross the streets without hitting another car. Of course, towing a car or backing a boat into the water requires additional skills. Riding a motorcycle requires constant vigilance and specific skills. Car rental companies will tell you that changing vehicles requires extra caution. I have done all of these things without accidents. About the only other things that I could do to encourage accidents -- statistically speaking -- is to drive drunk, which I don't do, or to drive for a living, which I have only occasionally done. Now you can argue that you are not aware of the research and statistical information that applies to the above, so I have to look up each statistic to prove that this is true. But if you say as much, I will not believe you. True, and I didn't state otherwise. If you look at my response above, you will see that I stated, "It is possible that statistically speaking, seatbelts are not good for me." You see that word, "me"? On the other hand, if seatbelts are not good for me, then it is possible that they are not good for some others, as well. We will never know because no one is going to collect data that considers this idea. This is much like the problem of the helmet laws for motorcyclists, which required bikers to wear helmets for years and years, even though helmets were killing people. Many people believed that helmets saved lives -- they did not. But finally the laws changed. One of the problems with statistics is the same as the problem that science has -- confirmation bias. You get answers to questions that you ask -- simple truth. If your premise is faulty and you don't ask the right questions, then you get crap. Yes, all events that apply to that subject, and the subject of that argument was me. That is exactly what I did in my "crappy argument" by listing all of the experiences that were part of my driving record, which should have caused accidents -- statistically speaking. But in truth, statistical arguments do not look at the "total effect", they just look to answer the questions asked. On 1/20/2026 at 3:14 PM, Gees said: Yes it is a statistical argument, and statistics are made up of facts -- not truths. The reality is that facts, therefore statistics, are easy to cherry pick, manipulate, and cause an invalid perception. Just look at what comes out of Washington if you want evidence of that truth. I have a lot of issues with statistics and don't trust them. Oh, I don't know about that. You used it to great effect the last time we argued and got three up votes for it. On 1/20/2026 at 3:14 PM, Gees said: In the first place, I worked as a temp in many offices in different capacities for years, and watched clerical workers gathering information (statistics) for bosses, insurance purposes, government agencies, etc. Most workers did not give two sh*ts about the information and saw it as an added, unpaid, responsibility. Would some/many of them fudge the information if it made the job easier? Absolutely. I suspect that your assumption that the workers were "lazy" or "dishonest" is because they are clerical workers. Would you jump to the same conclusions if they were scientists? I think I was about 15 years old when I first began to doubt statistics. I was reading an article about heart disease in a magazine and how it caused so much death. My Mother and Grandmother were at the dining room table enjoying tea, when I told them about the article. I don't remember the terminology that I used, but they looked at me then at each other then burst out laughing. I didn't see what was so damned funny and said so, but every time one of them tried to explain, they looked at each other and burst out laughing again. Finally my Mother asked, "What happens when you die?", and my Grandmother replied, "Your heart stops.", then they burst into laughter again. Once they got themselves under control, I learned that in the 45+ years between them that they had worked as nurses, they had witnessed many deaths and knew that heart disease/attack was often used as an explanation for death whether it was causal or not. Of course, that was over 60 years ago and medicine has been much improved since, so that does not happen anymore -- or does it? Twenty years ago, my husband died of cancer. Everyone knows that he died of cancer, but his Death Certificate states that congestive heart failure contributed to his death, which is not really true. I remember when they diagnosed him with congestive heart failure about six months before he died. I was quite surprised as he was no couch potato; he was very active, had no problems with blood pressure or his cholesterol levels. It made no sense to me. It made no sense to one of the younger doctors either, as he noted that the blood work did not support the diagnosis. My husband was sent home to die and Hospice was ordered for him. The Hospice doctor immediately took him off the cholesterol medication as my husband's bloodwork confirmed that it was not needed. His congestive heart failure was not caused by his blood. It was caused by the large tumor growing out of the main artery by his spine, which caused so much pressure on his spine that he could not feel his feet. After the surgery, when they tried to remove the tumor (but only got part of it), he was so pleased because he could feel his feet for the first time in a year. He died a few months later. The Hospice doctor was the one who filled out the Death Certificate, so why did he put congestive heart failure on it? He knew that my husband did not suffer from congestive heart failure, as the enlarged heart was due to the tumor; not cholesterol, high blood pressure, or bad diet/living habits. I would like to suggest that he put it on the certificate because of the rules, regulations, and facts that were required with regard to explaining the death. Much like the clerical workers, who were guided by policy and procedure rather than truth. So the people gathering statistics and the people studying them will add another lie to their knowledge. Was the doctor "lazy" or "dishonest"? He knew full well that the information would imply a false narrative, but he did it anyway. Would you call that "fudging" the truth so that he would not have to complicate the information? Should he have explained that the congestive heart failure was caused by a tumor? Is there a box for that information on the Certificate? Do the people, who are gathering statistics, want that much information? No. Truth can be simple; truth can be complex. It can be whole and it can be partial; such as, more true than not, or mostly true, or even occasionally true, or true now, or true from a specific perspective. Truth is rarely easy, which is why we need philosophers to help us find it. If it were easy, we could give it to scientists, they could make up an experiment, test it, and we could all know the truth. But the reality is that in order to fit truth into the little box that defines fact, we will have to corrupt truth. AI is not about intelligence or truth, it is about assimilating information and statistics. Using statistics to make judgements is like gambling, it is playing the odds. If people want to do that they can, but AI does not belong in a Court of law as it has nothing to do with justice or truth. Gee

Maybe. I have driven all over the United States, in Europe, on the right side of the road and on the other side, in cars, trucks, rental vehicles, and on motorcycles. I have towed cars, trailers, boats, and campers, but I do not wear seatbelts and have not for most of my life. Yet, I am not dead. It is possible that statistically speaking, seatbelts are not good for me. 😁 Yes it is a statistical argument, and statistics are made up of facts -- not truths. The reality is that facts, therefore statistics, are easy to cherry pick, manipulate, and cause an invalid perception. Just look at what comes out of Washington if you want evidence of that truth. I have a lot of issues with statistics and don't trust them. In the first place, I worked as a temp in many offices in different capacities for years, and watched clerical workers gathering information (statistics) for bosses, insurance purposes, government agencies, etc. Most workers did not give two sh*ts about the information and saw it as an added, unpaid, responsibility. Would some/many of them fudge the information if it made the job easier? Absolutely. In this age of computers, anyone who can access information can gather statistics and thinks they are as good as an actuary -- they are not. Then you have to look at the motivations for the gathering of the statistics. A statistical argument has the same flaws as science, in that they can both lose truth to confirmation bias. Yes, details matter. In the OP, I believe that AI was supposed to be used to ensure the safety of people in vehicles. So does that mean that once the problems are identified, AI would make recommendations? Maybe suggest drivers training to individuals? Point out dangerous activities? Give advice to the drivers/passengers? Ha Ha! I was laughing so hard, I fell off my chair. Or maybe the government agency is going to fine the drivers -- after all, they need to get their money back for purchasing AI. Yep, that is what they are going to do. It's a win win situation. The government will make money on the fines and save money because they don't have to clean up so many bodies. As for the people, yes, it may save some lives, but it will also cost them. How will that cost affect them? We don't know and I don't see anyone gathering statistics to find out. Motivation is very much a part of gathering statistics and selecting what is gathered -- which is part of why I don't trust statistics. As to other responses, some posters thought that a person would be necessary to oversee the infractions and regulate what was fined and what was not. That would be short lived, IMO, as AI would not be cost efficient if it had to be overseen, so it would eventually be on its own, or it would be discarded. Another poster thought that the evidence gathered by AI would be sent to the driver with the ticket, so that he could see what the problem was. This is also not likely. That evidence belongs to the prosecution/plaintiff and would not be sent to the defendant by the Court. That evidence could be solicited by the defendant though a Discovery Motion in an attempt to discover what plaintiff's evidence is, so that a defense/rebuttal could be made -- IF discovery is allowed in the case. Sometimes Discovery is not allowed between a city and a defendant. You just have to go to Court and find out what the evidence is. This is all a matter of Civil Procedures and is regulated by local laws. For example, while working in a law office in Wayne County (Detroit, Michigan) I talked to a New York attorney, who was having problems getting a child support case on the Wayne County Court docket. He had been working on it for six months and getting nowhere, so I asked him what he had Filed. After listening, I explained that we can not put a child support case on a Judge's Court docket, a Referee does that, so he needed to resend all of his information, and send second copies of everything to the Friend of the Court Referee, and be sure to include a yellow Praecipe, because without a yellow Praecipe, it would never get on the Friend of the Court docket. It would just sit in a pile of papers till the end of time. So I faxed him all the information and a month later I got an "I love New York" coffee cup in the mail. Gee

I am sorry swansont. If you had asked for a citation twenty-some years ago, I could have accommodated you, you know, before MS stole so many of my abilities including the ability to work, where I would have had access to a law library -- the kind with books -- but all I have now is the internet and have no idea of how to look things up. I tried, really I did. I was surprised to find that there are still a lot of cases regarding seat belts right up to 2025, but I don't know how to narrow the search. The original case that I had mentioned was not about whether or not we should use seat belts -- it was already law that we were required to use them -- it was about advertising the seat belts. Stating that "seat belts save lives" was inaccurate, a lie, because seat belts sometimes saved lives, sometimes killed people, and sometimes damaged people unnecessarily. A friend of mine, who had moved down south, had a son (in his twenties) who drove down to see his mother around the time of this court case and had a bad accident. He was driving on a two lane divided highway in a seriously dense fog when a semi truck hit him head on. Apparently the driver of the semi was new and in an unfamiliar area and thought that the road was a regular highway, not a divided one way. He didn't see the car until the last minute. He swerved, but still hit my friend's son's car and totaled it, destroying the passenger's side. The police told my friend's son that he was locked into place by his seat belt, which saved his life and prevented him being thrown into the damaged side of the car, but they also stated that his passenger and friend was saved because he was not wearing a seat belt. If he had been locked into the passenger's side, he would probably be dead. As you can imagine, this event caused a lot of debate about luck, fate, and guardian angels, which is why I remembered it. I did find the following in Google, which reinforces the idea that seat belts were not the end all solution and were sometimes dangerous. "Seat belts became mandatory with the first federal law taking effect on January 1, 1968, requiring all new cars to be equipped with seat belts. However, it wasn't until the 1980s that the use of seat belts became widely mandated and enforced, with New York being the first state to require vehicle occupants to wear them in 1984. Additionally, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act passed in 1966 laid the groundwork for these regulations." "Airbags were first introduced in the US in 1970 but became a standard safety device in cars in 1998. The first car to include factory-installed airbags was the 1973 Oldsmobile Toronado. The U.S. government mandated airbags in all new passenger vehicles by 1990, emphasizing their critical role in reducing crash-related injuries and fatalities." Less than ten years after mandating and enforcing the use of seat belts, we were looking for better ways to reduce crash-related injuries and fatalities. Airbags mitigated some of the damage caused by seat belts. Gee

AI does not actually lie, but neither does it tell the truth. We tend to associate intelligence with being smart, honest, truthful, etc., but it is not. Measured intelligence is simply a speed test in something's/someone's ability to assimilate information. So AI (artificial intelligence) is all about statistics and has nothing to do with smart, honest, or truthful. Courts, on the other hand, are all about truth, so what happens when you mix these two ideas -- intelligence and truth? Consider that forty or so years ago, the State of Michigan (USA) was all about trying to convince it's people to use seat belts, so there were signs everywhere stating, "Seat Belts Save Lives". It was on commercials on television, on radio, on billboard signs, everywhere -- then it stopped. I was surprised that the campaign stopped until I learned that the Michigan Supreme Court heard a case regarding seat belts and concluded that they did not in truth save lives and sometimes they killed people. In light of this new information, I expected the seat belt law to be retracted -- it was not. We still have to wear seatbelts. What I did not know, but learned later, was that seatbelts do not save lives, but they do save money. As far as injuries go, it progresses from minor injury, to major injury, to death, but as far as expense goes, it progresses from minor injury, to death, to major injury. Apparently a major injury is much more expensive than a death, and seatbelts prevent major injury -- wearing a seatbelt will protect you from major injury, or it will kill you. Much less expensive -- truth. Something to think about. Gee