On the Moral and Immoral Use of a Linguistic Gambit - Making it True

The statement made is true, because I did the things in that moment that its veracity relies on, but it's not the same as pointing out something that happens without my involvement. When I represent a thing in front of a person which is only true in its literal sense due to the fact that I purposely made its bases happen at the same time, that's not always the same thing as speaking about something that has greater connections to the Universe of objects, actions, and states. When something is made to be technically true for the purpose of not lying when it's described, it doesn't necessarily matter as much as the exact thing occurring naturally; even though it remains true, its lack of connections reduces its meaningfulness in context - especially context that's implied along with the descriptive statement but which is not at all true!

Political rhetoric and debate techniques use the gambit. It's even morally useful when it does, in fact, connect with greater things, though timing requires the put-on to communicate it to the audience who needs to hear it. That type occurs in the very same ways in both nature and in the put-on illustration in its moment of description.

Debates often mislead by using the gambit with the purpose of disconnecting the hearers' minds from the pertinent realities, and that's the problem with Large Language Models. They do not speak coherently throughout, just with the local coherence that effectively models language! Mechanisms are needed to keep them on track. Mechanisms are needed to keep politicians, debaters, and influencers on track, too!