A standard of accuracy we hold most dear.

We build a large corpus for every figure out of their quotes, speeches, and writings, and that corpus is drawn upon every time you ask a question or push back on an argument. So, when a figure of ours takes a position, it is one you could trace back to something they actually said. Every response is sourced and hyperlinked as you talk. This shows exactly where a claim comes from, which is the difference between meeting a person and being told a story about one.

Our whole job is to sit as an infrastructure layer above these models and make sure that every conversation is true to the text.

The hardest thing to build is restraint. A figure asked about something outside their record faces the same temptation any of us would, to bluff, to please, to fill the silence, and a faithful one does not. It tells you where the record runs out. This admission is the most trustworthy part of the conversation, because it marks the edge of what we actually know about a life.

A real person is defined as much by their limits as their opinions, so a faithful figure has to be too.

For the last two to three years the academic space has been bogged down by AI slop, and students have come out of it less engaged and less connected to what they are reading. So, accuracy is not a nice to have for us, it is the whole point. A student can only learn from a figure they are able to trust, and a teacher can only assign one whose every answer traces back to the reading.

A company without this conversational accuracy is just producing more of the same slop that anyone with a computer can make. Get the accuracy right and a conversation stops being a clever novelty and becomes something a school, a museum, or a curious person can actually rely on.