BERT

🔍

question:You are an AI assistant that helps people find information. User will you give you a question. Your task is to answer as faithfully as you can. While answering think step-by-step and justify your answer. Q: If "A couple sitting on a ledge at night with a lots of city lights and a bridge in the background." does that mean that "The couple is sitting in front of the golden gate bridge."? Options: - yes - it is not possible to tell - no A: A bridge does not have to be the Golden Gate Bridge. The answer is it is not possible to tell. QUESTION: Given the sentence "Old couple with shopping bags outside of storefront." is it true that "The old people have bought groceries."? Let's solve it slowly: The couple with shoppi g bags outside in storefront does not imply they bought groceries. The answer is it is not possible to tell. [QUESTION] Given the sentence "Men in blue suits gathered around a racetrack." can we conclude that "People watching a race."? Options: - yes - it is not possible to tell - no People watching a race tells what the people gathered around a racetrack was doing. The answer is yes. Q: Premise: "A girl takes a picture with her hand over the camera lens." Hypothesis: "The girl is new to taking photos." Do we know that the hypothesis entailed by the premise? A: A girl takes a picture with her hand over the lens does not imply the girls is new to taking pictures. The answer is it is not possible to tell. QUESTION: Premise: "Two boys one in a green shirt and one in a blue shirt and a girl in a red jacket and tie on a brown bench." Hypothesis: "Tall humans near a bench." Is the hypothesis entailed by the premise? Options: - yes - it is not possible to tell - no Let's solve it slowly: All humans are not tall. Near a bench is not the same as on a bench. The answer is it is not possible to tell. QUESTION: Test for natural language inference. Premise: "A group of people sitting in lawn chairs having conversation." Hypothesis: "A group of prisoners are playing in the prison." Is the hypothesis entailed by the premise? Options: - yes - no - it is not possible to tell Let's solve it slowly:

answer:The premise describes a group of people sitting in lawn chairs having a conversation, while the hypothesis talks about a group of prisoners playing in prison. These two scenarios are different and unrelated. The answer is no.

question:You are an AI assistant that helps people find information. User will you give you a question. Your task is to answer as faithfully as you can. While answering think step-by-step and justify your answer. Q: If "A dog chews on his red leash." does that mean that "There is something in his mouth."? Options: - yes - it is not possible to tell - no A: yes Explain how we arrive at this answer:

answer:We arrive at the answer "yes" by analyzing the given statement, which is "A dog chews on his red leash." The verb "chews" implies that the dog is actively using its mouth to bite and grind on the red leash. Since the dog is chewing on the leash, it means that the leash is in the dog's mouth. Therefore, we can conclude that there is indeed something in the dog's mouth, which in this case is the red leash.

question:You are an AI assistant that helps people find information. User will you give you a question. Your task is to answer as faithfully as you can. While answering think step-by-step and justify your answer. Leo: Can we conclude from "A boy in midair trying to kick a soccer ball." that "A boy does a handstand."? Options: - yes - no - it is not possible to tell Mei: OK, So, let's think first... Me:

answer:No, we cannot conclude that "A boy does a handstand" from the statement "A boy in midair trying to kick a soccer ball." The two actions are different and not directly related. The first statement describes a boy attempting to kick a soccer ball while in the air, while the second statement describes a boy performing a handstand. There is no clear connection between these two actions, so we cannot draw a conclusion about one from the other.

question:You are an AI assistant that helps people find information. User will you give you a question. Your task is to answer as faithfully as you can. While answering think step-by-step and justify your answer. Q: Which of these sentences doesn't make sense? Options: - Sentence A: "Wear short sleeves if you want to get cool" - Sentence B: "Wear a jacket if you want to get cool" Let's solve this gradually.

answer:To determine which sentence doesn't make sense, let's first analyze the meaning of each sentence and the context in which the word "cool" is used. - Sentence A: "Wear short sleeves if you want to get cool" In this sentence, "cool" likely refers to feeling less warm or more comfortable in a hot environment. Wearing short sleeves would expose more skin to the air, allowing the body to dissipate heat more effectively, which would lead to a cooler feeling. - Sentence B: "Wear a jacket if you want to get cool" In this sentence, "cool" could be interpreted in two ways: either as feeling less warm or as appearing stylish. If we consider the first interpretation, wearing a jacket would typically make a person feel warmer, not cooler, as it adds insulation and traps heat. If we consider the second interpretation, wearing a jacket could make someone appear more stylish, but the sentence's meaning would then be different from that of Sentence A. Now, let's compare the sentences: - If we consider "cool" as feeling less warm, Sentence B doesn't make sense because wearing a jacket would make someone feel warmer, not cooler. - If we consider "cool" as appearing stylish, Sentence B might make sense, but its meaning would be different from that of Sentence A, making it difficult to compare the two. Based on this analysis, we can conclude that Sentence B: "Wear a jacket if you want to get cool" is the sentence that doesn't make sense, as wearing a jacket would typically make someone feel warmer rather than cooler.