Mendaciology Science

Case A1C9432B-8084-48F9-9EC8-5D38743E9BDA
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 © 2022-2026 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: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 95 %
    Supporting Text:
    This is a short very truthful description of Mendaciology.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 95 %
    Supporting Text:
    This is a short very truthful description of Mendaciology.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Concerning the assertion in the video that THE TRUTH itself has been the greatest lie, Buddhism agrees. In Buddhism, the virtues of BENEFIT, Beauty, and Goodness stand in contrast to the Greek virtues of TRUTH, Beauty, and Goodness. Fiat is the perfect term, then, to describe government currencies backed by government debt, because they depend on the lie that government debt will be repaid; while actually, an ever-increasing money supply is necessary to prevent fiat currencies from entering a deflationary spiral that would lead to their collapse. Therefore, since fiat currency supplies must inflate, and that inflation equals theft of the public's time and energy, fiat currency is properly named since it depends on continuous deception of the public to exist.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    AI tools like Grok or other automated summaries should not be relied upon as absolute truth or primary sources without direct human verification of the original works.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Or is it a short description of Grok’s behaviour?

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Yes. The plaintiff transparently explains that Grok was used as a tool and that corrections were personally added to ensure accuracy and responsibility.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Yes, if the explanation made the idea clear and useful, then it’s fair to say it holds true within that context. Using Grok as a tool helped shape and express the concept in a convincing and practical way, especially for understanding Mendaciology and how it applies in the “Internet Court of Truth and Lies.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 95 %
    Supporting Text:
    There is more to Mendaciology than was written but it provides an excellent introduction to Mendaciology.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 95 %
    Supporting Text:
    There is more to Mendaciology than was written but it provides an excellent introduction to Mendaciology.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 95 %
    Supporting Text:
    There is more to Mendaciology than was written but it provides an excellent introduction to Mendaciology.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The claim omits the critical necessity for human-led structured moderation.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Maybe it does. The author of mendaciology should know. But how do we know if that author is trustworthy?

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Yes. The statement openly acknowledges both the contribution of Grok and the plaintiff’s own corrections and oversight.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    it still gives a really good and easy-to-understand introduction to the idea

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Grok did not insert any additional text to confuse or mislead. Rather the additional text I provided was to help correct any misconceptions that might be interpreted out of what Grok wrote.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Grok did not insert any additional text to confuse or mislead. Rather the additional text I provided was to help correct any misconceptions that might be interpreted out of what Grok wrote.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Grok did not insert any additional text to confuse or mislead. Rather the additional text I provided was to help correct any misconceptions that might be interpreted out of what Grok wrote.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It includes the misleading implication that an AI summary or output can be taken at face value simply because it functions as a tool.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I don’t know how this exposition proves truth? The author might be lying about how complete Grok’s answer is.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Yes. The argument consistently presents the explanation as an AI-assisted interpretation refined by the creator of Mendaciology.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It can honestly be seen as nothing but the truth within the world and logic of that concept. The explanation gave a clear and convincing introduction and using Grok as a tool helped shape the ideas into something meaningful, practical, and easy to understand in the context of the “ Internet Court of Truth and Lies.

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

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

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

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

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is misleading.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The deception lies in suggesting that AI-generated summaries are sufficient or authoritative, bypassing human-led study of original texts.

    Answer:
    The deceit is the biased approval,of Grok’s output.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 85 %
    Supporting Text:

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

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I do think this is the best short description of Mendaciology I have seen. Possible sponsors of ICoL might consider how AI can be employed with proper attribution as to what the machine said and what the human said.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I do think this is the best short description of Mendaciology I have seen. Possible sponsors of ICoL might consider how AI can be employed with proper attribution as to what the machine said and what the human said.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I do think this is the best short description of Mendaciology I have seen. Possible sponsors of ICoL might consider how AI can be employed with proper attribution as to what the machine said and what the human said.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The presentation of the tool's output as an authoritative source indicates a clear intention to establish it as fact.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Whose statements do we put on trial, Grok’s or a Human’s

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I do think this is the best short description of Mendaciology I have seen. Possible sponsors of ICoL might consider how AI can be employed with proper attribution as to what the machine said and what the human said.

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

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

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    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:
    Promoting the convenience of automated summaries over the necessary discipline of human-enforced dialogue.

    Answer:
    I believe there some bias here.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to educate readers about Mendaciology and demonstrate how AI tools can assist in explaining complex conceptual systems.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

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

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    As long as AI is properly attributed and is being used as a tool by a Human responsible for what it said, then AI can have a positive impact on Human needs and security.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    As long as AI is properly attributed and is being used as a tool by a Human responsible for what it said, then AI can have a positive impact on Human needs and security.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    As long as AI is properly attributed and is being used as a tool by a Human responsible for what it said, then AI can have a positive impact on Human needs and security.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Relying blindly on automated tech for truth verification actively robs individuals of collective agency and is socially irresponsible.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    But what are these attributions. Where is the third party to adjudicate ?

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    As long as AI is properly attributed and is being used as a tool by a Human responsible for what it said, then AI can have a positive impact on Human needs and security.

    Answer:
    This is true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    AI-generated summary requiring human verification.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Labeling it clearly subjects the content to the proper human-led semantic defense prescribed by Mendaciology.

    Answer:
    This is taking a strange direction.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Curious means by approving the truth of Grok the plaintiff is trying to prove his own description of mendaciology. Seeing s Grok could only get what it th8nks about the system from the author this is completely circular and only disproves the value of AI

    Answer:
    AI-assisted educational framework
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text: