1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

13 hours ago, 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.

Not at all, facts requires faith for us to accept them, truth is just waiting for us to prove it wrong, again...

I disagree with both members' statements as the situation is rather more complicated than either simplistic view of truth or fact.

Rather than indulge in semantic argument, surely it is better for any user of either vague term to define exactly what they mean by fact or truth, or the relationship betwen them if they need that.

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

I disagree with both members' statements as the situation is rather more complicated than either simplistic view of truth or fact.

Rather than indulge in semantic argument, surely it is better for any user of either vague term to define exactly what they mean by fact or truth, or the relationship betwen them if they need that.

In France, it's illegal to call a pig Napoleon...

14 hours ago, Gees said:

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.

But for a statement to be true, it must correspond to some state of affairs in the world, i.e. be factual. (Or, if an analytic truth, be inherent in the meanings of the words used) So synthetic truths (to use Kant's distinction) ARE dependent on facts. (This, BTW, is not about me being a science guy, but a precision in how we use words in any context like this)

Your example isn't really working, given that it describes a situation where key facts were missing and therefore an untrue verdict resulted from a failure of due process. The true statement is that you did not shoot the man, and it is also a fact that you did not shoot him. That a court made a grave error in discovering the key facts doesn't require us to redefine what facts are. Synthetic truths DO require facts, i.e. statements which correspond to reality.

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In France, it's illegal to call a pig Napoleon...

So, a certain George Orwell book has been banned?

22 hours ago, TheVat said:

So, a certain George Orwell book has been banned?

I have no idea, but it is plausible, Napoleon was loved by many and equating him with a pig is not acceptable; you should see some of the law's in some American state's. 🙃

I did hear it from a source of trust tho...

23 hours ago, TheVat said:

But for a statement to be true, it must correspond to some state of affairs in the world, i.e. be factual. (Or, if an analytic truth, be inherent in the meanings of the words used) So synthetic truths (to use Kant's distinction) ARE dependent on facts. (This, BTW, is not about me being a science guy, but a precision in how we use words in any context like this)

I was thinking more Wittgenstein "The limits of my language means the limits of my world."

Edited Tuesday at 12:23 PM2 days by dimreepr

Possibly related: a German court basically ruled that Google’s AI hallucinated results are statements by Google since they aren’t just information being passed along, so Google isn’t protected as normal search engine results are.

“The court treated the AI overviews as Google's own content and rejected Google's argument that users were responsible for fact-checking the results themselves.”

Also that allegedly being accurate 91% of the time isn’t good enough

https://the-decoder.com/landmark-german-ruling-declares-googles-ai-overviews-are-googles-own-words-and-makes-it-liable-for-false-answers/

Since it ties responsibility for errors back to the creator of the AI, perhaps this is followed by similar rulings elsewhere and under other circumstances.

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

Possibly related: a German court basically ruled that Google’s AI hallucinated results are statements by Google since they aren’t just information being passed along, so Google isn’t protected as normal search engine results are.

“The court treated the AI overviews as Google's own content and rejected Google's argument that users were responsible for fact-checking the results themselves.”

Also that allegedly being accurate 91% of the time isn’t good enough

https://the-decoder.com/landmark-german-ruling-declares-googles-ai-overviews-are-googles-own-words-and-makes-it-liable-for-false-answers/

Since it ties responsibility for errors back to the creator of the AI, perhaps this is followed by similar rulings elsewhere and under other circumstances.

Interesting +1

Edited yesterday at 11:13 AM1 day by studiot

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Possibly related: a German court basically ruled that Google’s AI hallucinated results are statements by Google since they aren’t just information being passed along, so Google isn’t protected as normal search engine results are.

“The court treated the AI overviews as Google's own content and rejected Google's argument that users were responsible for fact-checking the results themselves.”

Also that allegedly being accurate 91% of the time isn’t good enough

https://the-decoder.com/landmark-german-ruling-declares-googles-ai-overviews-are-googles-own-words-and-makes-it-liable-for-false-answers/

Since it ties responsibility for errors back to the creator of the AI, perhaps this is followed by similar rulings elsewhere and under other circumstances.

We have an AI creator 'Anthropic' warning us that we're in danger of losing control of AI development since they're writing their own code.

Is 'Anthropic' at fault for the consequences of ignoring that warning?

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We have an AI creator 'Anthropic' warning us that we're in danger of losing control of AI development since they're writing their own code.

Is 'Anthropic' at fault for the consequences of ignoring that warning?

I don’t understand the question. Who is “they” that’s writing code?

Anthropic should be responsible for whatever its code does, and if someone uses AI to write code, that someone should be responsible for that code. Are you talking about writing code with AI and then blaming the AI for whatever bad happens as a result? Such lawsuits will better define who’s legally responsible for what, like how a manufacturer is liable for a defective product or certain obvious ways of using it unsafely, like with automobiles - there are legally required safety features, but the driver is at fault for accidents

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Possibly related: a German court basically ruled that Google’s AI hallucinated results are statements by Google since they aren’t just information being passed along, so Google isn’t protected as normal search engine results are.

“The court treated the AI overviews as Google's own content and rejected Google's argument that users were responsible for fact-checking the results themselves.”

Also that allegedly being accurate 91% of the time isn’t good enough

https://the-decoder.com/landmark-german-ruling-declares-googles-ai-overviews-are-googles-own-words-and-makes-it-liable-for-false-answers/

Since it ties responsibility for errors back to the creator of the AI, perhaps this is followed by similar rulings elsewhere and under other circumstances.

That and other lawsuits tackling liability (including causing harm and other safety concerns) will hopefully start to shape a regulatory framework for AI and its use.

Also, do you want blueberry in your muffin or mealworms?

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

That and other lawsuits tackling liability (including causing harm and other safety concerns) will hopefully start to shape a regulatory framework for AI and its use.

As usual, though, this will come after damage has been done, even though some of the problems were easily foreseeable

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Also, do you want blueberry in your muffin or mealworms?

MEALworms are, by definition, too filling. The lembas bread of the larval insect world. You’d have to use snackworms.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

As usual, though, this will come after damage has been done, even though some of the problems were easily foreseeable

No doubt, regulations are written in blood as the saying goes. Strangely, it is never the blood of profiteers.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

MEALworms are, by definition, too filling. The lembas bread of the larval insect world. You’d have to use snackworms.

Great, I now know that you want to make lembas muffins for larvae. Do you want me to write the whole recipe or should we torture the elves first?

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.

On 6/7/2026 at 6:39 PM, studiot said:

I couldn't agree more. And the bigger the business the more it seems to be able to avoid laws others have to follow.

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.

On 6/7/2026 at 6:39 PM, studiot said:

Glad you like it. I found it difficult to know where to place this 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.

On 6/7/2026 at 6:39 PM, studiot said:

I don't know how much you know about the British legal system (and of those countries who folowed it) but it is quite different form the American system in several important ways

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.

On 6/7/2026 at 6:39 PM, studiot said:

The British system distinguishing two forms of law breaking, one criminal and one civil.

We also have criminal law and civil law.

On 6/7/2026 at 6:39 PM, studiot said:

The burden of proof, penalties and consequences of each are quite different.

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).

On 6/7/2026 at 6:39 PM, studiot said:

In particular the ' balance of probabilities' is not acceptable in criminal cases.

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.

On 6/7/2026 at 6:39 PM, studiot said:

The California case I referred to above could not arise unde British law since criminal responsibility is held by the vehicle owner unless some other person can be proven to have been driving.

California is often the first in the States to enact new laws/principals. In other States, I suspect it is much like British law.

On 6/7/2026 at 6:39 PM, studiot said:

An AI is not a legal person, so the responsability immediately falls back on the owner. Statistics has nothing to do with this situation. If the driven vehicle is proven to have run a red light etc someone ( a legal person in British parlance ) must be responsible. that legal person nedd not be Human but cannot at present be an AI.

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?

On 6/7/2026 at 6:39 PM, studiot said:

If only @imatfaal , whose legal knowledge vastly exceeds mine, were still here I would greatly value their opinion on this thread.

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?

On 6/7/2026 at 6:39 PM, studiot said:

Please allow me the luxury of knowing what I am talking about, mathematically speaking.

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.

On 6/7/2026 at 6:48 PM, studiot said:

In what would {world} would AI be involved in providing evidence in this hypothetical case ?

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...

On 6/8/2026 at 8:09 AM, studiot said:

I disagree with both members' statements as the situation is rather more complicated than either simplistic view of truth or fact.

Rather than indulge in semantic argument, surely it is better for any user of either vague term to define exactly what they mean by fact or truth, or the relationship betwen them if they need that.

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

21 hours ago, swansont said:

I don’t understand the question. Who is “they” that’s writing code?

This is the article that triggered my question...

I'm suggesting that in a court of law, this co-founder could argue that he has washed his hand's of any responsibility due to his warning of the danger his AI presents, even if he continues to work on the project.

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

This is the article that triggered my question...

I'm suggesting that in a court of law, this co-founder could argue that he has washed his hand's of any responsibility due to his warning of the danger his AI presents, even if he continues to work on the project.

You don’t legally get to wash your hands of responsibility that easily/casually, though. That’s one implication of the German court ruling.

AI doesn’t turn the computer on and install itself.

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

AI doesn’t turn the computer on and install itself.

No, it's far more nebulous than that...

Wasn't the internet built to bypass any stoppage?

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No, it's far more nebulous than that...

Wasn't the internet built to bypass any stoppage?

My computer doesn’t work if it’s not plugged in, regardless of whether it’s hooked up to the internet.