Ask A Genius 1454: Context, Meaning, and Logic: Why Humans Still Outperform AI in Understanding
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/15
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore how alternative logics like paraconsistent and fuzzy logic operate outside quantum mechanics. Their conversation highlights the human brain’s unique ability to process context, the pitfalls of quiz show questions lacking clarity, and the importance of scrutinizing meaning in an increasingly AI-influenced world.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I am going to set you up here. I will have a lot to say on this one. You asked me to ask an AI whether the logics we recently covered—paraconsistent logic, classical logic, fuzzy logic, and others—are derivable from quantum mechanics or its logic.
It turns out the answer is no. That raises many questions. Are some of these logics like imaginary numbers in mathematics, like the square root of minus one? They do not directly correspond to physical quantities, but they are internally consistent and meaningful within specific systems.
So what if some logics are like that? Entire systems representing categories of meaninglessness—like that Chomsky example I mentioned before: “Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.” Structurally, it is self-consistent, but semantically, it may not correspond to reality. However, it could still be meaningful within an abstract framework.
Rosner: Yes, in some sense, you could view the human mind as a context engine—capable of predicting or understanding meaning based on structure and context.
Jacobsen: People are not used to thinking about truth in context. When someone says something is true or false, they usually mean true or false, or they assume the statement is flawed.
Rosner: That came up when I worked on quiz shows. For example, I do not like the current producer of Jeopardy!, Michael Davies. He used to run Who Wants to Be a Millionaire when I sued them, and he was not responsive. I recently saw a Final Jeopardy! A clue that said something like: “Ironically, given her name, this woman was the most hunted woman of the twentieth century.” Nobody got it right. I had no idea either. The answer was Princess Diana.
So the logic is: Diana is the Roman goddess of the hunt—so that is the wordplay. Then “most hunted woman” refers to being pursued by paparazzi. However, the problem lies in the ambiguity of the word “hunted.” Unless someone had previously called her “the most hunted woman of the twentieth century” in quotation marks, the clue was vague and unfair.
If you are going to rely on metaphor or word association, it needs to be anchored. In this Case, “hunted” has several meanings, and “pursued by paparazzi” is not even one of the most common. It is the kind of question you might eventually solve with an hour of reasoning, but not in thirty seconds.
When I worked on quiz shows, we called those “fuck-you questions”—they are not solvable within the game’s constraints. That one qualified. Now, I am sure they road test the Jeopardy! Questions. They probably ask a few people around the office whose job it is to gauge the difficulty. Maybe those people got it right. However, I did not think it was a reasonable clue.
A “fuck-you question” on a quiz show is like: “How many fingers does Bill Cosby have?” The answer is ten, which is normal, so why ask it? A good question needs a pinable, unusual fact you are asking about. There are plenty of wobbly questions, and many of them are shot down by fact-checking. But some slip through.
In that Jeopardy! In this Case, none of the contestants could complain about the Final Jeopardy! Question because it did not change the outcome. Nobody got it right, and no one provided a plausible alternative answer. Most did not answer at all. So, it is not actionable, but it is still a bad question.
So, yes—context. We are used to living in a world with decent context. When you watch Jeopardy!, most people are not scrutinizing the questions. And generally, Jeopardy! Does a good job. I was just surprised by how bad that particular question was.
Could the average reasonably intelligent and slightly-above-average-educated person have an internal fact-checker? Enough context to sift nonsense from meaning? Most of what people say to you has some context, so it makes sense. If something lacks context or seems nonsensical, people usually respond with, “What?” or ask for it to be repeated.
Carole has a habit of yelling things to me from across the house, often when there is background noise, like the washing machine. I do not always catch what she says. So I will respond with nonsense words—intentionally goofy stuff—to signal that I did not hear her. I mean it as a joke, but she takes it seriously and gets annoyed, which in turn annoys me. I am joking. I misheard, so I said something silly. But it backfires.
Jacobsen: So people like context. They expect it. Moreover, you are playing with the expectation for comedic effect.
Rosner: Yes, I am perversely amused by saying things that do not make sense. However, I am learning not to do it, because it leads to trouble. Since 99.8% of what people hear—either on the first attempt or after asking someone to repeat—comes with reasonable context, they are not accustomed to scrutinizing meaning too closely. That applies to jokes, too. I listen to a zillion jokes.
R If you set up a joke and end on something like an analogy—say, going from the Kardashians to rotten fruit, or from Trump to a baby shitting his pants—it does not matter if the analogy holds logically. People will laugh at the attempt at the analogy. Just mentioning Trump and linking him, however absurdly, to a pooping baby can get a laugh. It does not need to make sense. People often enjoy the incongruity more than the precision.
They try to make sense of nonsense, especially if it is couched in something familiar or funny. Only after repetition—when they hear it again and it still makes no sense—might they say, “I do not understand,” or assume the speaker is incoherent. It takes a lot for someone to declare that something truly lacks context or meaning.
That is why I keep saying: we need to scrutinize context. We need to understand the conditions in which information makes sense—or does not.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 