(Runcible) Conundrum. So, Runcible can test the truth and ethics of nearly every

(Runcible)
Conundrum.
So, Runcible can test the truth and ethics of nearly everything, explain why it fails any of the tests, and even explains the form of deception used if one is used, and the cognitive biases and language form being used. I mean, seriously, it’s devastating.

Now there are at least two business cases.

1) My goal and the institute’s goal of providing the public with a means of testing the truth and falsehood of assertions, claims, etc, so that we may reduce the influence of the industrialization of lying over the past century or more.
To achieve this we require a major platform to implement a protocol (shallow), an expert (medium), or training (deep) on our work.
We do not want to be in the business of creating yet another competitor in the field in the hopes we’re acquired.

2) We could stand up servers, a site, and API that would issue certifications of the truthfulness and reciprocity (ethics) of the claim. And we could store both the claims and the certifications. We would effectively become another ratings agency. And we could charge per certification.

Now, we could start with #1 and evolve into #2, which is the low risk strategy. It would allow us to demonstrate competency and avoid risk until we had the metrics to warrant ‘charging’ for certification.

My concerns are:
(a) I started my work, the institute, and this company Runcible, with the desire to produce truth and ethics validation/falsification for the masses in defense of the pervasive ‘lying’ of the talking classes across the spectrum. Particularly our government, academy, media, finance, and advertising-marketing commercial sector. This goal is social and political first, and economic second.
(b) I do not care about or want to be in the business of certifying products, services, and claims. (Though to be honest, other members of the team, in particular my business partner Brad, are happy to run that business.) It’s a liability minefield and I think it is contrary to the objective of saving the common people from false promise and deception.
(c) That said, it is much easier to get a VC to fund Option #2.
(d) The major hosting and LLM producing companies do not want to be in the certification business. It puts them in potential conflict with their customers. But at least SOME of them are interested in having the option to ‘truth test’ almost anything online (That is, until they figure out how much of their cognitive bias reinforcement is almost certainly false.)
(e) The major hosting providers might find a conflict between truth testing, alignment, and customer bias. IN other words, they’re blame free if people don’t expect the truth from them. But what happens when they dish the truth – and the population doesn’t like it -even if we try to align any controversial truth to the bias of the user.

So, do you see my conundrum?

If you have worthy thoughts about this please share.

Curt