Status: Debatable
Assertion
Humans can see in complete darkness.
Reasoning
[Explanation]
– explanation: Debatable: The statement is debatable because while it’s possible that a credible observer could have witnessed two people walking together in a wooded area, the truthfulness of this observation depends on various factors such as visibility conditions, distance, and the observer’s ability to accurately identify individuals. These uncertainties make it difficult to definitively confirm or deny the statement without additional information about the specific situation and credibility of the source.
Assumptions
Assuming someone has made an admission about two individuals, here is how one could break down the underlying assumptions for the statement “A man and a woman are walking together through the woods”:
1. The person making the admission is truthful or reliable: We assume that the individual who admits to seeing the couple in question can be trusted. This assumption is necessary because without it, there’s no guarantee if their account of events is accurate.
2. The man and woman were indeed walking together at some point during the observation period: It’s assumed that these two individuals shared a path or trail through the woods simultaneously.
3. There was sufficient lighting or visibility for someone to observe them from afar: This assumes that there are no obstructions (like dense foliage) preventing an observer from noticing their presence in the woods.
4. The location of observation is credible and relevant: It’s assumed that the person making this admission was actually present at a place where they could have observed these two individuals together, within or near the woods.
5. There were no interruciplinary observations (e.g., from other people) corroborating this account
Fact Checker Output
<|assistant|> 1. The person making the admission is truthful or reliable: True/False – This cannot be definitively determined as true or false without additional information about the individual’s credibility, past behavior, and potential motives for telling this particular story. However, if there are no reasons to doubt their honesty in general, we may lean towards assuming it is true.
2. The man and woman were indeed walking together at some point during the observation period: True/False – This assumption could be either true or false depending on various factors such as time of day, location, and presence of an observer. Without more context, this statement cannot be definitively labeled true or false.
3. There was sufficient lighting or visibility for someone to observe them from afar: True/False – This assumption could also vary based on circumstances like weather conditions, seasonal changes (e.g., dense foliage during fall), and the observer’s positioning. However, in general, it is possible that an observer might have seen a couple walking through woods if they were close enough and there was adequate visibility.
4. The location of observation is credible and relevant: True/False – This assumption
Model Used
microsoft/Phi-3-mini-4k-instruct-gguf
Script Name
fact_checker_mongodb.py
Script Code
import os
import sys
import requests
from langchain_openai.llms import OpenAI
from langchain.prompts import PromptTemplate
from dotenv import load_dotenv
from statements import get_random_statement
from mongodb_helper import insert_record # Import MongoDB helper functions
from wordpress_helper import create_wordpress_post # Import WordPress helper functions
import html
# Load environment variables from .env file
load_dotenv()
def fact_check(assertion):
llm = OpenAI(temperature=0.7, model=os.getenv("MODEL_NAME"))
# Define the prompt templates
assertion_template = """{assertion}\n\n"""
assertion_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["assertion"], template=assertion_template)
assumptions_template = """Here is a statement:
{statement}
Make a bullet point list of the assumptions required to support the above statement.\n\n"""
assumptions_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["statement"], template=assumptions_template)
fact_checker_template = """Here is a bullet point list of assertions:
{assertions}
For each assumption, determine whether it is true or false. Explain your reasoning.\n\n"""
fact_checker_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["assertions"], template=fact_checker_template)
answer_template = """
Here is the information to classify the statement:
{facts}
Based on the above information, how would you classify the statement? Respond with one of the following options followed by a colon and space:
- True: [Explanation]
- False: [Explanation]
- Debatable: [Explanation]
"""
answer_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["facts"], template=answer_template)
# Format prompts and extract the string content
formatted_assertion = assertion_prompt.format_prompt(assertion=assertion).text
assertion_output = llm.invoke(formatted_assertion)
formatted_assumptions = assumptions_prompt.format_prompt(statement=assertion_output).text
assumptions_output = llm.invoke(formatted_assumptions)
formatted_fact_checker = fact_checker_prompt.format_prompt(assertions=assumptions_output).text
fact_checker_output = llm.invoke(formatted_fact_checker)
formatted_answer = answer_prompt.format_prompt(facts=fact_checker_output).text
final_output = llm.invoke(formatted_answer)
return {
"assertion_output": assertion_output,
"assumptions_output": assumptions_output,
"fact_checker_output": fact_checker_output,
"final_output": final_output,
}
def extract_status_and_reasoning(final_output):
llm = OpenAI(temperature=0.7, model=os.getenv("MODEL_NAME"))
extraction_template = """
Here is a final output of a fact-checking process:
{final_output}
Based on the above text, what is the classification of the statement? Respond with one of the following options followed by a colon and space:
- True: [Explanation]
- False: [Explanation]
- Debatable: [Explanation]
"""
extraction_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["final_output"], template=extraction_template)
formatted_prompt = extraction_prompt.format_prompt(final_output=final_output).text
extraction_output = llm.invoke(formatted_prompt).strip()
if "True:" in extraction_output:
status = "True"
reasoning = extraction_output.split("True:", 1)[1].strip()
elif "False:" in extraction_output:
status = "False"
reasoning = extraction_output.split("False:", 1)[1].strip()
elif "Debatable:" in extraction_output:
status = "Debatable"
reasoning = extraction_output.split("Debatable:", 1)[1].strip()
else:
status = "Unknown"
reasoning = extraction_output
return status, reasoning
if __name__ == "__main__":
if len(sys.argv) > 1:
assertion = sys.argv[1]
else:
assertion = get_random_statement()
print(assertion)
submission = fact_check(assertion)
# Print the detailed outputs to inspect their structure
for key, value in submission.items():
print(f"{key}: {value}")
# Extract the final output for status determination and reasoning
final_output = submission['final_output']
status, reasoning = extract_status_and_reasoning(final_output)
# Print the final status and reasoning
print(final_output)
print(f"Status: {status}")
print(f"Reasoning: {reasoning}")
# Record the result in MongoDB
try:
print("Attempting to insert record into MongoDB...")
insert_record(
script_name=__file__,
script_code=html.escape(open(__file__).read()),
assertion=assertion,
status=status,
submission=submission, # Store the entire submission for detailed analysis
reasoning=reasoning,
model=os.getenv("MODEL_NAME")
)
print("Record inserted into MongoDB successfully.")
except Exception as e:
print(f"Failed to insert record into MongoDB: {e}")
# Create a blog post on WordPress
blog_title = f"Fact Check: {assertion}"
blog_content = f"""
<h1>Status: {status}</h1>
<h2>Assertion</h2>
<p>{assertion}</p>
<h2>Reasoning</h2>
<p>{reasoning}</p>
<h3>Assumptions</h3>
<p>{submission['assumptions_output']}</p>
<h3>Fact Checker Output</h3>
<p>{submission['fact_checker_output']}</p>
<h4>Model Used</h4>
<p>{os.getenv("MODEL_NAME")}</p>
<h4>Script Name</h4>
<p>fact_checker_mongodb.py</p>
<h4>Script Code</h4>
<pre>{html.escape(open(__file__).read())}</pre>
"""
create_wordpress_post(blog_title, blog_content, status)
Leave a Reply