[Imnimo]

This is such a weird bit of research to me. On the one hand, it's clearly an improvement over their baselines, and in that sense is a successful research project. Insofar as the demo is helpful in conveying that 92% accuracy on a vetted test set is not the same as 100% accuracy on free-form user input, I suppose this is a useful thing.

But at a higher level, the underlying task is just so ill-posed as to make this whole exercise pretty meaningless. Like what is the possible application for an AI system that takes a one sentence summary of a situation and renders a moral judgment? Even if it were 100% accurate on the test set, what does that even mean? Why is matching crowdsourced moral judgments a valuable goal?

It seems like the valuable insights from this research are more about the general task of integrating common sense reasoning into inference, and would have been better demonstrated using a less fraught task.