  In this position paper, we argue that careless reliance on AI to answer our
questions and to judge our output is a violation of Grice's Maxim of Quality as
well as a violation of Lemoine's legal Maxim of Innocence, performing an
(unwarranted) authority fallacy, and while lacking assessment signals,
committing Type II errors that result from fallacies of the inverse. What is
missing in the focus on output and results of AI-generated and AI-evaluated
content is, apart from paying proper tribute, the demand to follow a person's
thought process (or a machine's decision processes). In deliberately avoiding
Neural Networks that cannot explain how they come to their conclusions, we
introduce logic-symbolic inference to handle any possible epistemics any human
or artificial information processor may have. Our system can deal with various
belief systems and shows how decisions may differ for what is true, false,
realistic, unrealistic, literal, or anomalous. As is, stota AI such as ChatGPT
is a sorcerer's apprentice.
