So, "plants are pleasant" or "insects are unpleasant" are universal truths?
The paper seems to advocate for designing ML systems that learn that what is "true now" may not be "true forever and always". It seems to be quite the opposite of "there are certain truths that ML systems should not learn."
Setting such a standard for a machine is ridiculous if all you want is a new tool to get some work done.
rmxt questioned the universality of sentiment analysis. Responding by noting specific contexts, free from a clear coherent general structure, is an assertion against the discovered sentiments' universal truth.
Is suggesting that pleasantness is a sentiment that's not unique to humans really that controversial?
super late edit: it's specifically flowers, not plants, that people are biased towards finding pleasant
Ah, but those exceptions are really unpleasant.