About This Project

AI can produce confident interpretations of ancient writing before the evidence trail is reviewed. This project tests the hypothesis that a fixed Falsifiability Sheet will make AI-assisted claims clearer, more consistent, and easier to check. Five Egyptian control claims will be reviewed with public sources, fixed questions, and reviewer feedback where possible. Claims will receive Green/Yellow/Red outcomes, and the project will produce five public sheets, a small dataset, and a short report.

Ask the Scientists

What is the context of this research?

AI can produce confident interpretations of ancient writing before evidence is checked. This project responds to concerns raised in the NIST AI Risk Management Framework about evaluating and managing AI risk. It asks whether a simple traffic-light evidence sheet can help readers review claims across linguistics, iconography, and epigraphy.

Egyptian hieroglyphics are used as a control case because the script is already understood; the British Museum explains that the Rosetta Stone helped decode hieroglyphs. Five claims will be tested using fixed evaluation questions, public evidence, and reviewer checks. The hypothesis is that the sheet adds a practical layer to the scientific method by turning disputed interpretations into testable claim units with a preserved evidence trail. Success means the sheet clearly separates Green supported, Yellow uncertain, and Red unsupported claims. Outputs: five public sheets, a small dataset, and a short report.

What is the significance of this project?

This project matters because ordinary fact-checking often checks a final answer, while this framework checks the claim before it becomes accepted as true. In ancient writing, a polished interpretation can hide weak evidence, missing context, or AI overconfidence.

The gap this project addresses is claim-level review. Existing source checks and AI evaluations often ask whether an answer is accurate overall. This pilot asks a narrower question: which parts of an interpretation claim are supported, uncertain, or unsupported?

The new insight will come from testing the framework on five Egyptian control cases. The pilot will show where claims hold, weaken, remain unresolved, or fail, and whether a fixed evidence sheet makes disputed interpretations easier to compare, review, and correct.

What are the goals of the project?

Phase 1 will test five short interpretation claims about Egyptian hieroglyphic signs, words, or passages. The goal is not to re-decipher Egyptian, but to see whether disputed interpretation claims can be checked before they are accepted as true.
For each claim, the project will record what the claim says, what evidence supports it, what evidence weakens it, and what remains uncertain. Each claim will be checked through fixed questions, public sources, and reviewer feedback where possible.
Success will be measured by completing five public evidence sheets, assigning each claim a Green, Yellow, or Red result, and publishing a small dataset plus a short report. Green means supported, Yellow means uncertain, and Red means unsupported. The report will show which claims held, weakened, remained unresolved, or failed.