Status: True
Assertion
Humans are not responsible for climate change.
Reasoning
The majority of climate scientists are experts in their field, reputable organizations like NASA and IPCC accurately represent the scientific consensus on climate change, most research indicates human activities as a primary driver for recent warming, and while the greenhouse effect is natural, increased GHG concentrations due to human actions exacerbate global warming.
– Explanation: The statement has been classified as true because it aligns with scientific consensus on climate change, supported by evidence from expert scientists, reputable organizations, and research findings.
Assumptions
<|assistant|> – The overwhelming majority of scientists exist and have expertise in climate change research.
– Scientific organizations such as NASA and IPCC are credible sources that accurately represent scientific consensus on climate change.
– Climate change is primarily driven by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
– The greenhouse effect is a natural process, but its enhancement due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can be attributed to human activities.
– Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are significant greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and deforestation.
– Fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas have been extensively burned for energy production on a large scale over recent decades or centuries.
– Deforestation has occurred at significant scales globally due to various human activities such as agriculture expansion, logging, and urbanization.
Fact Checker Output
<|assistant|> 1. True – The majority of climate scientists have dedicated their careers to studying climate change, making them experts in the field. Various scientific organizations like NASA and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are well-respected for their research and consensus findings related to climate change.
2. True – NASA and IPCC are reputable sources that rely on peer-reviewed scientific literature, collaborating scientists from around the world, and rigorous methodologies. They accurately represent the current scientific understanding of climate change.
3. True – The overwhelming majority of climate research supports human influence as a primary driver in recent climate change. Burning fossil fuels releases large amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs), while deforestation reduces Earth’s ability to absorb CO2, both contributing significantly to global warming.
4. True – The greenhouse effect is indeed a natural process in which certain atmospheric gases trap heat from the sun, keeping our planet warm enough for life. However, human activities have increased concentrations of these GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O
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