AI systems today answer every question, whether the evidence behind them is strong, weak, or missing entirely – a habit that turns dangerous the moment those answers shape decisions about people, policy or the planet. Moriba Jah, Co-founder of GaiaVerse, argues the problem isn't imperfect models, but how that imperfection gets hidden behind fluent, confident language.
He introduces the Theory of Epistemic Abductive Geometry (TEAG), a framework built on falsification and comparison rather than confirmation, letting a system say "I don't know" and then explain what remains standing under scrutiny, aiming for AI outputs that stay traceable and auditable in domains from climate risk to space sustainability.
Recorded live at the AI for Good Global Summit 2026 at Palexpo in Geneva, Switzerland.
_____________________________________________________________________
AI for Good is identifying innovative AI applications, building skills and standards, and advancing partnerships to solve global challenges.
AI for Good is organized by ITU in partnership with over 50 UN partners and co-convened with the Government of Switzerland.
Join the Neural Network!
👉https://aiforgood.itu.int/neural-netw...
The AI for Good networking community platform powered by AI.
Designed to help users build connections with innovators and experts, link innovative ideas with social impact opportunities, and bring the community together to solve global challenges using AI.
🔴 Watch the latest #AIforGood videos!
aiforgood
📩 Stay updated and join our weekly AI for Good newsletter:
http://eepurl.com/gI2kJ5
🗞Check out the latest AI for Good news:
https://aiforgood.itu.int/newsroom/
📱Explore the AI for Good blog:
https://aiforgood.itu.int/ai-for-good...
🌎 Connect on our social media:
Website: https://aiforgood.itu.int/
X: Twitter: AIforGood
LinkedIn Page: LinkedIn: 26511907
LinkedIn Group: LinkedIn: 8567748
Instagram: Instagram: aiforgood
Facebook: Facebook: AIforGood
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed are those of the panelists and do not reflect the official policy of the ITU.
AI systems today answer every question, whether the evidence behind them is strong, weak, or missing entirely – a habit that turns dangerous the moment those answers shape decisions about people, policy or the planet. Moriba Jah, Co-founder of GaiaVerse, argues the problem isn't imperfect models, but how that imperfection gets hidden behind fluent, confident language.
He introduces the Theory of Epistemic Abductive Geometry (TEAG), a framework built on falsification and comparison rather than confirmation, letting a system say "I don't know" and then explain what remains standing under scrutiny, aiming for AI outputs that stay traceable and auditable in domains from climate risk to space sustainability.
Recorded live at the AI for Good Global Summit 2026 at Palexpo in Geneva, Switzerland.
_____________________________________________________________________
AI for Good is identifying innovative AI applications, building skills and standards, and advancing partnerships to solve global challenges.
AI for Good is organized by ITU in partnership with over 50 UN partners and co-convened with the Government of Switzerland.
Join the Neural Network!
👉https://aiforgood.itu.int/neural-netw...
The AI for Good networking community platform powered by AI.
Designed to help users build connections with innovators and experts, link innovative ideas with social impact opportunities, and bring the community together to solve global challenges using AI.
🔴 Watch the latest #AIforGood videos!
aiforgood
📩 Stay updated and join our weekly AI for Good newsletter:
http://eepurl.com/gI2kJ5
🗞Check out the latest AI for Good news:
https://aiforgood.itu.int/newsroom/
📱Explore the AI for Good blog:
https://aiforgood.itu.int/ai-for-good...
🌎 Connect on our social media:
Website: https://aiforgood.itu.int/
X: Twitter: AIforGood
LinkedIn Page: LinkedIn: 26511907
LinkedIn Group: LinkedIn: 8567748
Instagram: Instagram: aiforgood
Facebook: Facebook: AIforGood
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed are those of the panelists and do not reflect the official policy of the ITU.