Again, you need frame the article around the paper they're trying to build their benchmark against. Yes, the real world/natural language is fuzzy, but the ProofWriter paper (that this article bases it's own benchmark on) is not about taking fuzzy rules and turning them into proofs, it's about taking concrete statements, mapping those to facts, rules and conclusions.
We CAN'T from the statement "dogs are usually wet" make any conclusions about the wetness state of your neighbours dog.
We CAN from the statement "there is no teacup floating around Saturn" create a rule, specifically about teacups floating around Saturn.
As silly as that rule sounds, it allows you to refine/test against things, for example your space engineering team might have been under the assumption that no coffee mugs are orbiting Saturn, so you ask your all-knowing oracle what the probabilities of that statement being false are and you CAN get an answer that it rightfully doesn't know. That allows your space engineers to go back to the drawing board about the proof itself, is it actually that there's no crockery at all floating around Saturn? We can generalise our proof, then and cover off dinner plates and bowls as well instead of just tea cups.
The point is you don't _want_ the model to guess, in that scenario. You want it to say "I don't know, I don't have enough information to make that conclusion based on what you've told me about Saturn so far", which is exactly what Luna seems to do and get "wrong", according to the blog.
We CAN'T from the statement "dogs are usually wet" make any conclusions about the wetness state of your neighbours dog.
We CAN from the statement "there is no teacup floating around Saturn" create a rule, specifically about teacups floating around Saturn.
As silly as that rule sounds, it allows you to refine/test against things, for example your space engineering team might have been under the assumption that no coffee mugs are orbiting Saturn, so you ask your all-knowing oracle what the probabilities of that statement being false are and you CAN get an answer that it rightfully doesn't know. That allows your space engineers to go back to the drawing board about the proof itself, is it actually that there's no crockery at all floating around Saturn? We can generalise our proof, then and cover off dinner plates and bowls as well instead of just tea cups.
The point is you don't _want_ the model to guess, in that scenario. You want it to say "I don't know, I don't have enough information to make that conclusion based on what you've told me about Saturn so far", which is exactly what Luna seems to do and get "wrong", according to the blog.