> This would imply that every scoring function is a fact checker Right. A "fact checker" in this meaning is a function that checks against a body of facts. A "

> This would imply that every scoring function is a fact checker Right. A "fact checker" in this meaning is a function that checks against a body of facts. A "fact checker" in the colloquial meaning is someone performing a check against the body of facts they can find in resources available to them. I don't think this takes away anything from the term, but it does highlight that the task is not objective, and that the result depends on feeding the function with the correct body of facts. What follows is that if you feed ChatGPT the "correct" body of facts, you might get a fact checker in the colloquial meaning. That "fact checker" is ill-defined matters a lot because the argument here was that you can't do any reasoning if you don't have a truth model (which I guess was implied to be the "fact checker"). And if the argument is based on ill-defined terms, then it doesn't prove anything about whether GPT can do reasoning or not. EDIT: Actually, scratch it. I do mean that any knowledge, text => boolean function is a "fact checker" and constitutes a "truth model". If some other "truth model" is meant, please explain, because I don't see how this one can be used to prove anything about the ability to reason based on whether someone implements it or not.