|
|
|
|
|
by nl
2935 days ago
|
|
Detecting pseudo-science questions is just topic detection. That's easy. not mistaking questions for assertions of fact is basically claim verification. That's pretty much beyond the reach of NLP systems at the moment. It's an active area of research, but if this system doesn't impress you then current claim verification systems most definitely won't either. Trying to understand the context of sentences might be possible. I think that sentence would challenge that approach for a while: "prejudices" implies bias, but doesn't necessarily imply disagreement. |
|
Ah, OK. I guess you are one of those people for whom NLP is only the newfangled statistical stuff, not the old-school NLP that looks at grammar and such things to (surprisingly) find that "X is a Y ." and "is X a Y ?" are not the same sequence of tokens.
> Trying to understand the context of sentences might be possible.
I didn't say they must understand the context. I said that if they don't understand it, they shouldn't choose a substring out of that sentence and claim that it is an assertion of fact on its own.