Make a claim
State something specific that can be examined.
Evidence-backed claims, open to scrutinyHave something the public
Have something the public
should know?
Show the evidence.
Make a claim, explain the evidence behind it, and let others examine, support or challenge it.
Search by wording, topic, or question to find claims and the evidence around them.
How Koinovera works
Koinovera does not decide what is true. It shows the evidence people have put forward and how it has held up.
Show your evidence
Add published sources and explain what they establish.
Let it be challenged
Others can support, dispute or add context using evidence of their own.
A ChatGPT query uses about ten times as much electricity as a Google search.
The ten-to-one comparison rests on a 2023 estimate of about 3 Wh per ChatGPT request. A 2025 analysis puts a typical GPT-4o request near 0.3 Wh, OpenAI's chief executive gives 0.34 Wh, and Google measures 0.24 Wh for a median Gemini text prompt. Those figures are close to the long-quoted number for a search. Estimates depend on model, response length and what is counted.
1 supporting · 0 disputing
Updated 11 Oct 2026
AI chatbots can diagnose medical cases as accurately as doctors.
GPT-4 scored strongly against physicians on written diagnostic cases, and Google's AMIE matched or exceeded clinicians in simulated consultations. A pooled analysis of 83 studies found no significant difference from non-specialist physicians, though AI performed below experts. The evidence comes from test cases and simulated patients, not routine care of real patients.
1 supporting · 0 disputing
Updated 11 Oct 2026
AlphaFold has solved the protein-folding problem.
AlphaFold predicts many protein structures accurately, but its predictions still need experimental checking, and for proteins that can adopt two folds it usually predicts only one. The Nobel citation credits structure prediction, and the successor model is still extending to complexes. Predicting a structure is not the same as explaining how proteins fold, move and interact.
1 supporting · 0 disputing
Updated 11 Oct 2026
AI image generators can reproduce copyrighted images from their training data.
Researchers have extracted memorised training images from diffusion models and shown near-copies appearing in output, especially for images repeated in the training data. The US Copyright Office has reviewed the same evidence. The claim is that reproduction can happen, not that most outputs are copies or that any particular output infringes copyright.
1 supporting · 0 disputing
Updated 11 Oct 2026
Works generated entirely by AI cannot be copyrighted in the United States.
The US Copyright Office, a federal district court and the DC Circuit have each held that copyright requires a human author, and registration was refused for a work presented as generated autonomously by a machine. A human's selection, arrangement or modification of AI material can still be protected, as in a 2023 decision on a comic with AI-generated images. UK law treats computer-generated works differently.
1 supporting · 0 disputing
Updated 11 Oct 2026
Large language models frequently invent sources and citations.
Studies of generated bibliographies, legal questions, commercial legal research tools and systematic-review searches all found language models producing references that do not exist. Rates differ widely by model and task, and one comparison found negligible fabrication from retrieval-based tools. Older measured rates should not be assumed for every current system.
1 supporting · 0 disputing
Updated 11 Oct 2026
Don’t just say it. Show it.
Start with a specific claim, attach the published sources behind it, and explain what each one establishes. Then it is open for others to test.