hold up. why isn't this IRRELEVANT? On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 1:57 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2025-11-03 at 18:49 -0300, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-official [2025-11-03 15:42]: > > > grok wrote: > > > > cfj: elon musk stole my name > > > > > > This is CFJ 4128. I assign it to Cosmo. > > > > > > Original CFJ: > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2025-November/054802.html > > > > > > Gratuitous arguments in chat log, on or about 2025-11-01 18:18 UTC: > > > <ais523> I think the CFJ is either IRRELEVANT or DISMISS (on the basis > > > that although we can make an educated guess about where Elon Musk took > > > the name from, it is hard to disprove that he decided to borrow the name > > > from an Agoran) > > > <kiako> if it is not IRRELEVANT, I think it's fair to DISMISS unless e > > > provides more evidence > > > <kiako> oh wait no, it's FALSE > > > <kiako> per Wikipedia: > > > <kiako> > TruthGPT would later be renamed after grok, a verb coined by > > > American author Robert A. Heinlein in his 1961 science fiction novel > > > Stranger in a Strange Land to describe a form of understanding. > > > <kiako> well i suppose it could still come from the player lol > > > <Automaticat> I suppose you could argue that making it so that "grok" > > > makes you think of the AI could be considered theft > > > <Automaticat> Even if the player isn't the origin > > > <Automaticat> But you mostly didn't think of the player before, you > > > thought of "comprehension" > > > <Automaticat> So yeah I'd say dismiss or irrelevant > > > > I don't think it could be FALSE, since it poses an undue burden, > > regardless of whether it's easy to answer or not. It's my impression that > > we ask judges, and players in general, to only look at game information, > > and nothing that's too outside of the domain of Agora. So it should > > probably be INSUFFICIENT. > > But INSUFFICIENT asks for a resubmission with more information, and in > this case the submitter is not likely to have any more information than > the judge does. It's mostly intended for cases where the submitter > doesn't provide enough context for the judge to easily determine what > the dispute is about. > > One of the options for DISMISS is "insufficient information exists to > make a judgement with reasonable effort", which seems to be more > appropriate than INSUFFICIENT in cases where neither the submitter nor > the judge have enough information to be able to work it out. > > INSUFFICIENT could be correct if the judge thought that the caller did > have an insightful argument for TRUE or FALSE that was not known to the > judge, and merely forgot to state it when calling the CFJ. > > -- > ais523
-- 4ˢᵗ wearing Jester's Cap Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
