Status: Debatable
Assertion
Monogamy is unnatural for humans.
Results
While human adaptability can result from cultural influences and individual agency, it’s important to consider the interconnectedness of biological factors, societal norms, and personal experiences that shape human behavior. Therefore, this statement is debatable as there isn’t a single factor responsible for human adaptability, but rather an intricate combination of various elements.
Assumptions
Answer: To support the claim that “Monogamy is unnatural for humans,” several assumptions would need to be considered:
1. Humans are primarily driven by biological and evolutionary factors rather than cultural or societal influences in forming relationships.
2. The majority of mammals exhibit polygamous social structures, implying that monogamy is uncommon among humans within the broader context of mammalian behavior.
3. Human behaviors and preferences are solely influenced by biological factors rather than being shaped through cultural evolution or individual experiences.
4. The concept of monogamy as a societal norm in human cultures is not based on any inherent natural tendency among humans, but is instead an artificial construct developed over time due to specific social circumstances and preferences.
5. Human adaptability does not necessarily mean that our ability to conform or change behavior aligns with biological imperatives; rather it could be a result of cultural influences or individual agency.
It’s essential to note, however, that these assumptions may oversimplify the complex interplay between nature and nurture in human social behaviors, relationships, and societal norms
Fact Checker Output
support: 1. False – While biological and evolutionary factors play a significant role in forming relationships, cultural and societal influences also significantly shape human behavior and preferences, including relationship formation.
2. True but oversimplified – Many mammals exhibit polygamous social structures, which could imply that monogamy is less common among humans within the broader context of mammalian behavior. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean it’s unnatural for humans, as our species has also shown instances of monogamous relationships and societal norms supporting them.
3. False – Human behaviors are influenced by a complex interplay between biological factors and cultural evolution or individual experiences, rather than being solely determined by one aspect.
4. True but oversimplified – While human adaptability can lead to conforming to societal norms like monogamy, it’s essential to recognize that the concept of monogamy as a social construct may have evolved due to various factors such as resource availability or cultural preferences rather than biological imperatives alone.
5. True – Human adaptability can indeed result from cultural influences and individual agency
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
import html
# Load environment variables from .env file
load_dotenv()
# Define category IDs
CATEGORY_IDS = {
"True": 2,
"False": 3,
"Debatable": 4,
"Unknown": 6
}
def create_wordpress_post(title, content, category):
data = {
"title": title,
"content": content,
"status": "publish",
"categories": [CATEGORY_IDS[category]]
}
response = requests.post(
os.getenv("WORDPRESS_POSTS_URL"),
json=data,
auth=(os.getenv("WORDPRESS_USERNAME"), os.getenv("WORDPRESS_PASSWORD"))
)
if response.status_code == 201:
print("Blog post created successfully.")
else:
print(f"Failed to create blog post: {response.status_code} - {response.text}")
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):
final_output = final_output.strip()
if "True:" in final_output:
status_start = final_output.find("True:")
status = "True"
elif "False:" in final_output:
status_start = final_output.find("False:")
status = "False"
elif "Debatable:" in final_output:
status_start = final_output.find("Debatable:")
status = "Debatable"
else:
return "Unknown", final_output
reasoning = final_output[status_start + len(status) + 1:].strip()
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)
# Record the result in MongoDB
try:
print("Attempting to insert record into MongoDB...")
insert_record(
script_name="fact_checker_mongodb.py",
script_code=html.escape(open(__file__).read()),
assertion=assertion,
status=status,
submission=submission, # Store the entire submission for detailed analysis
model=os.getenv("MODEL_NAME")
)
print("Record inserted into MongoDB successfully.")
except Exception as e:
print(f"Failed to insert record into MongoDB: {e}")
print(final_output)
# 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>Results</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