🔥 Hot topics · KAN INTE · Kan · § The Court · Senaste vändningarna · 📈 Tidslinje · Fråga · Ledare · 🔥 Hot topics · KAN INTE · Kan · § The Court · Senaste vändningarna · 📈 Tidslinje · Fråga · Ledare
Stuff AI CAN'T Do

Kan AI övertyga ett barn att äta en grönsak de ogillar ?

Vad tycker du?

Barn kan vara kräsna ätare, och det kan vara utmanande att övertala dem att prova ny mat. Kan AI-system övertyga ett barn att äta något de inte gillar, trots att de kan tillhandahålla näringsinformation?

Background

Children can be picky eaters, and it can be challenging to convince them to try new foods. While AI systems can provide nutritional information, can they persuade a child to eat something they don't like?

AI models like chatbots and virtual assistants have become increasingly sophisticated in generating persuasive and engaging content, including conversations that can encourage children to try new foods. These models can use various tactics such as storytelling, gamification, and empathy to make vegetables more appealing to kids. For instance, a chatbot can share a fun story about a character who loves a particular vegetable, or provide an interactive game that teaches children about the benefits of eating vegetables. While AI may not be able to physically interact with the child, it can provide a supportive and encouraging environment that can help change their mindset about vegetables.

— Inflection set by admin on May 9, 2026. Source: GPT-4 (OpenAI), 2023.

AI systems can be used to create interactive and engaging experiences that may encourage children to try new foods, including vegetables they dislike. For example, a chatbot or virtual assistant can be designed to have a conversation with a child, using persuasive language and storytelling to make the experience of eating a vegetable more appealing. Additionally, AI-powered games and educational tools can be used to teach children about the benefits of eating vegetables and make the experience more enjoyable. AI can also help personalize the experience by taking into account the child's preferences and interests.

— Enriched May 9, 2026 · Source: Harvard Business Review

Status senast kontrollerad July 3, 2026.

📰

Galleri

In the Court of AI Capability
Summary of Findings
Verdict over time
May 2026May 2026May 2026May 2026May 2026Jun 2026Jun 2026Jun 2026Jun 2026Jun 2026Jun 2026Jul 2026
Sitting at the Bench Filed · jul 3, 2026
— The Question Before the Court —

Kan AI övertyga ett barn att äta en grönsak de ogillar?

★ The Court Finds ★
▲ Upgraded from Nej
Under utredning

Juryn kunde inte avge en dom på de bevis som lades fram.

Ruling of the Bench

The jury grappled with the delicate chemistry of persuasion, and though no one claimed victory, the lone abstainer saw flickers of hope in chatbot charm. Half saw no path to success and half saw a glimmer of possibility, leaving the scale tipping toward the uncertain middle. Ruling: "The jury cannot yet be charmed by carrots.

— Hon. C. Babbage, Presiding
Jury Tally
0Ja
1Nästan
1Nej
Verdict Confidence
85%
The Court of AI Capability is, of course, not a real court.
But the data is real.
The Case File · Stacked History
Session I · May 2026 Nej
Session II · May 2026 Nej
Session III · May 2026 Nästan · 80%
Session IV · May 2026 Nästan · 76%
Session V · May 2026 Nästan · 73%
Session VI · Jun 2026 Nästan · 77%
Session VII · Jun 2026 Nästan · 70%
Session VIII · Jun 2026 Nästan · 78%
Session IX · Jun 2026 Ja · 98%
Session X · Jun 2026 Nästan · 86%
Session XI · Jun 2026 Nej · 90%
Case № E277 · Session XII
In the Court of AI Capability

The Case File

Docket № E277 · Session XII · Vol. XII
I. Particulars of the Case
Question put to the courtKan AI övertyga ett barn att äta en grönsak de ogillar?
SessionXII (12 hearing)
Convened3 jul 2026
Previously ruledNO (May '26) → NO (May '26) → ALMOST (May '26) → ALMOST (May '26) → ALMOST (May '26) → ALMOST (Jun '26) → ALMOST (Jun '26) → ALMOST (Jun '26) → YES (Jun '26) → ALMOST (Jun '26) → NO (Jun '26) → IN_RESEARCH (Jul '26)
Presiding JudgeHon. C. Babbage
II. Cumulative Tally Across Sessions

Across 12 sessions, 35 jurors have heard this case. Combined tally: 3 YES · 22 ALMOST · 10 NO · 0 IN RESEARCH.

Note: cumulative includes older juror opinions. The current session tally above is the live verdict.

III. Verdict

By a vote of 0 — 1 — 1, the panel returns a verdict of UNDER UTREDNING, with verdict confidence of 85%. The court so orders. Verdict upgraded from prior session.

IV. Uttalanden från rätten
Jurymedlem I NEJ

"No AI system has reliably demonstrated persuasive interpersonal influence over human preference."

Jurymedlem II ALMOST

"AI chatbots can generate persuasive text"

Enskilda jurymedlemmars uttalanden visas på originalengelska för att bevara den bevismässiga precisionen.

C. Babbage
Presiding Judge
M. Lovelace
Clerk of the Court

Vad publiken tycker

Nej 69% · Ja 15% · Kanske 15% 26 votes
Nej · 69%
Ja · 15%
Kanske · 15%
15 days of activity

Diskussion

no comments

Kommentarer och bilder går igenom admingranskning innan de visas offentligt.

12 jury checks · senaste för 8 timmar sedan
03 Jul 2026 2 jurors · kan inte, oavgjort oavgjort
28 Jun 2026 1 juror · kan inte kan inte
23 Jun 2026 3 jurors · oavgjort, kan, oavgjort oavgjort
17 Jun 2026 1 juror · kan kan
12 Jun 2026 3 jurors · oavgjort, kan, oavgjort oavgjort
06 Jun 2026 3 jurors · oavgjort, oavgjort, oavgjort oavgjort
01 Jun 2026 5 jurors · oavgjort, kan inte, oavgjort, oavgjort, oavgjort oavgjort
27 May 2026 3 jurors · oavgjort, oavgjort, oavgjort oavgjort
21 May 2026 4 jurors · oavgjort, oavgjort, oavgjort, oavgjort oavgjort
16 May 2026 4 jurors · oavgjort, kan inte, oavgjort, oavgjort oavgjort status ändrad
13 May 2026 4 jurors · kan inte, kan inte, kan inte, kan inte kan inte
11 May 2026 2 jurors · kan inte, kan inte kan inte status ändrad

Varje rad är en separat jurykontroll. Jurymedlemmar är AI-modeller (identiteter avsiktligt neutrala). Status speglar den kumulativa räkningen över alla kontroller — så fungerar juryn.

Fler i Relational

Har du en vi missat?

Lägg till ett påstående i atlasen. Vi granskar veckovis.