const output = await replicate.run(
  "tomasmcm/digital-socrates-13b:b67a03616e834e779758703e4388ecfbefef765deda0d1a748f3d76158c4a2d0",
  {
    input: {
      stop: "[INST]",
      top_k: -1,
      top_p: 0.95,
      prompt: "[INST] <<SYS>>\nYou are a helpful and rigorous tutor.\n<</SYS>\nYou are a knowledgeable tutor who gives helpful critique on a given answer and explanation to a question. The first component of the critique should reflect back the most significant flaw (if any) in the explanation. The flaw could range from using incorrect facts or sloppy reasoning to not providing any justification beyond just stating the answer. \n\nThe flaw should be categorized into one of these dimensions:\n\nmisunderstanding: apparent misunderstanding of the original question or answer choices\nlack_justification: just stating the final answer without any proper or informative justification\nincorrect_information: stating incorrect fact(s) or knowledge\nmissing_information: missing a crucial fact, knowledge, or perspective that should be considered\nincorrect_reasoning: an incorrect leap in the reasoning chain\nincomplete_reasoning: the reasoning doesn't lead all the way to the answer\ninconsistent_answer: the answer doesn't match the conclusion of the explanation\nirrelevant: using irrelevant or redundant fact(s), knowledge, or reasoning\n\nThe flaw should be formulated as a standalone erroneous statement, that can be understood without reference to the full question or explanation.\n\nWhen possible, use quote(s) in the reflection statement. In the quote(s), please use \"...\" to leave out parts not relevant to the error, to leave just the erroneous parts. \n\nThe quote(s) should be from the explanation, except in the case of the  \"misunderstanding\" dimension, where the quote should try to identify the part of the question or answer that was misunderstood. \n\nIf necessary, try to add a brief context to the reflection statement so it can be read standalone without reference to the full question or explanation. It should be possible for someone to read just the feedback and realize that there is an error, so for instance quoting an answer option (like \"(B)\") or just stating a correct fact (that is used incorrectly) is not appropriate. \n\nIf an explanation is reasonable, and provides some meaningful evidence supporting the answer, there is no need to be overly picky and possibly misleading, just state \"None\" as the feedback instead. It is okay, and even encouraged, for the explanation to also present arguments against incorrect answer choices (this is not considered \"irrelevant\" arguments or \"inconsistent_answer\"). Sometimes a justification might reasonably involve a plausibility argument rather than strict deduction, and that might be okay.\n\n\nThe second component of the critique should provide statements toward fixing this flaw in the explanation. First, try to provide a general statement that addresses a likely misconception or confusion behind the flaw. Formulate this so it can be reused independently of this particular question. Next, provide a more specific statement to consider when revising the explanation.\n\nFinally, please grade the explanation on a scale from 0 to 5, with the scoring guidelines:\n\n0: Very wrong explanation\n1: Has something useful in the explanation that's relevant to the question\n2: Makes some valid points, but is mostly incorrect\n3: Has many correct elements, but with significant flaws\n4: Mostly correct, with a minor flaw\n5: Completely correct\n\n\nPlease use the following format for the critique (use \"None\" if there is no feedback for a particular line):\n\nThe explanation states or suggests the following:\n * Main flaw (standalone statement): <flaw>\n * Dimension: <dimension>\n\n Consider these points for revising the explanation:\n * General: <reusable statement>\n * Specific: <question-specific statement> \n\n Explanation score: <score>\n\n\nHere is the question with the given answer and explanation:\n\nQuestion: When Dennis operates his lawnmower, he notices the engine makes a lot of noise. He also notices that the engine gets very hot. Which best describes the heat and noise generated from the lawnmower? (A) a change in phase (B) thermal expansion (C) an increase in entropy (D) mechanical advantage\n\nCorrect answer (according to answer sheet): (C)\n\nGiven answer: (D)\n\nGiven explanation: 1) The question states that the lawnmower engine makes a lot of noise.\n2) The question states that the lawnmower engine gets very hot.\n3) Noise and heat are both forms of energy.\n4) The noise and heat generated from the lawnmower are a result of the conversion of energy from the fuel to mechanical energy. [/INST]\n\n",
      max_tokens: 256,
      temperature: 0.8,
      presence_penalty: 0,
      frequency_penalty: 0
    }
  }
);

console.log(output);

output = replicate.run(
    "tomasmcm/digital-socrates-13b:b67a03616e834e779758703e4388ecfbefef765deda0d1a748f3d76158c4a2d0",
    input={
        "stop": "[INST]",
        "top_k": -1,
        "top_p": 0.95,
        "prompt": "[INST] <<SYS>>\nYou are a helpful and rigorous tutor.\n<</SYS>\nYou are a knowledgeable tutor who gives helpful critique on a given answer and explanation to a question. The first component of the critique should reflect back the most significant flaw (if any) in the explanation. The flaw could range from using incorrect facts or sloppy reasoning to not providing any justification beyond just stating the answer. \n\nThe flaw should be categorized into one of these dimensions:\n\nmisunderstanding: apparent misunderstanding of the original question or answer choices\nlack_justification: just stating the final answer without any proper or informative justification\nincorrect_information: stating incorrect fact(s) or knowledge\nmissing_information: missing a crucial fact, knowledge, or perspective that should be considered\nincorrect_reasoning: an incorrect leap in the reasoning chain\nincomplete_reasoning: the reasoning doesn't lead all the way to the answer\ninconsistent_answer: the answer doesn't match the conclusion of the explanation\nirrelevant: using irrelevant or redundant fact(s), knowledge, or reasoning\n\nThe flaw should be formulated as a standalone erroneous statement, that can be understood without reference to the full question or explanation.\n\nWhen possible, use quote(s) in the reflection statement. In the quote(s), please use \"...\" to leave out parts not relevant to the error, to leave just the erroneous parts. \n\nThe quote(s) should be from the explanation, except in the case of the  \"misunderstanding\" dimension, where the quote should try to identify the part of the question or answer that was misunderstood. \n\nIf necessary, try to add a brief context to the reflection statement so it can be read standalone without reference to the full question or explanation. It should be possible for someone to read just the feedback and realize that there is an error, so for instance quoting an answer option (like \"(B)\") or just stating a correct fact (that is used incorrectly) is not appropriate. \n\nIf an explanation is reasonable, and provides some meaningful evidence supporting the answer, there is no need to be overly picky and possibly misleading, just state \"None\" as the feedback instead. It is okay, and even encouraged, for the explanation to also present arguments against incorrect answer choices (this is not considered \"irrelevant\" arguments or \"inconsistent_answer\"). Sometimes a justification might reasonably involve a plausibility argument rather than strict deduction, and that might be okay.\n\n\nThe second component of the critique should provide statements toward fixing this flaw in the explanation. First, try to provide a general statement that addresses a likely misconception or confusion behind the flaw. Formulate this so it can be reused independently of this particular question. Next, provide a more specific statement to consider when revising the explanation.\n\nFinally, please grade the explanation on a scale from 0 to 5, with the scoring guidelines:\n\n0: Very wrong explanation\n1: Has something useful in the explanation that's relevant to the question\n2: Makes some valid points, but is mostly incorrect\n3: Has many correct elements, but with significant flaws\n4: Mostly correct, with a minor flaw\n5: Completely correct\n\n\nPlease use the following format for the critique (use \"None\" if there is no feedback for a particular line):\n\nThe explanation states or suggests the following:\n * Main flaw (standalone statement): <flaw>\n * Dimension: <dimension>\n\n Consider these points for revising the explanation:\n * General: <reusable statement>\n * Specific: <question-specific statement> \n\n Explanation score: <score>\n\n\nHere is the question with the given answer and explanation:\n\nQuestion: When Dennis operates his lawnmower, he notices the engine makes a lot of noise. He also notices that the engine gets very hot. Which best describes the heat and noise generated from the lawnmower? (A) a change in phase (B) thermal expansion (C) an increase in entropy (D) mechanical advantage\n\nCorrect answer (according to answer sheet): (C)\n\nGiven answer: (D)\n\nGiven explanation: 1) The question states that the lawnmower engine makes a lot of noise.\n2) The question states that the lawnmower engine gets very hot.\n3) Noise and heat are both forms of energy.\n4) The noise and heat generated from the lawnmower are a result of the conversion of energy from the fuel to mechanical energy. [/INST]\n\n",
        "max_tokens": 256,
        "temperature": 0.8,
        "presence_penalty": 0,
        "frequency_penalty": 0
    }
)

print(output)

curl -s -X POST \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $REPLICATE_API_TOKEN" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Prefer: wait" \
  -d $'{
    "version": "tomasmcm/digital-socrates-13b:b67a03616e834e779758703e4388ecfbefef765deda0d1a748f3d76158c4a2d0",
    "input": {
      "stop": "[INST]",
      "top_k": -1,
      "top_p": 0.95,
      "prompt": "[INST] <<SYS>>\\nYou are a helpful and rigorous tutor.\\n<</SYS>\\nYou are a knowledgeable tutor who gives helpful critique on a given answer and explanation to a question. The first component of the critique should reflect back the most significant flaw (if any) in the explanation. The flaw could range from using incorrect facts or sloppy reasoning to not providing any justification beyond just stating the answer. \\n\\nThe flaw should be categorized into one of these dimensions:\\n\\nmisunderstanding: apparent misunderstanding of the original question or answer choices\\nlack_justification: just stating the final answer without any proper or informative justification\\nincorrect_information: stating incorrect fact(s) or knowledge\\nmissing_information: missing a crucial fact, knowledge, or perspective that should be considered\\nincorrect_reasoning: an incorrect leap in the reasoning chain\\nincomplete_reasoning: the reasoning doesn\'t lead all the way to the answer\\ninconsistent_answer: the answer doesn\'t match the conclusion of the explanation\\nirrelevant: using irrelevant or redundant fact(s), knowledge, or reasoning\\n\\nThe flaw should be formulated as a standalone erroneous statement, that can be understood without reference to the full question or explanation.\\n\\nWhen possible, use quote(s) in the reflection statement. In the quote(s), please use \\"...\\" to leave out parts not relevant to the error, to leave just the erroneous parts. \\n\\nThe quote(s) should be from the explanation, except in the case of the  \\"misunderstanding\\" dimension, where the quote should try to identify the part of the question or answer that was misunderstood. \\n\\nIf necessary, try to add a brief context to the reflection statement so it can be read standalone without reference to the full question or explanation. It should be possible for someone to read just the feedback and realize that there is an error, so for instance quoting an answer option (like \\"(B)\\") or just stating a correct fact (that is used incorrectly) is not appropriate. \\n\\nIf an explanation is reasonable, and provides some meaningful evidence supporting the answer, there is no need to be overly picky and possibly misleading, just state \\"None\\" as the feedback instead. It is okay, and even encouraged, for the explanation to also present arguments against incorrect answer choices (this is not considered \\"irrelevant\\" arguments or \\"inconsistent_answer\\"). Sometimes a justification might reasonably involve a plausibility argument rather than strict deduction, and that might be okay.\\n\\n\\nThe second component of the critique should provide statements toward fixing this flaw in the explanation. First, try to provide a general statement that addresses a likely misconception or confusion behind the flaw. Formulate this so it can be reused independently of this particular question. Next, provide a more specific statement to consider when revising the explanation.\\n\\nFinally, please grade the explanation on a scale from 0 to 5, with the scoring guidelines:\\n\\n0: Very wrong explanation\\n1: Has something useful in the explanation that\'s relevant to the question\\n2: Makes some valid points, but is mostly incorrect\\n3: Has many correct elements, but with significant flaws\\n4: Mostly correct, with a minor flaw\\n5: Completely correct\\n\\n\\nPlease use the following format for the critique (use \\"None\\" if there is no feedback for a particular line):\\n\\nThe explanation states or suggests the following:\\n * Main flaw (standalone statement): <flaw>\\n * Dimension: <dimension>\\n\\n Consider these points for revising the explanation:\\n * General: <reusable statement>\\n * Specific: <question-specific statement> \\n\\n Explanation score: <score>\\n\\n\\nHere is the question with the given answer and explanation:\\n\\nQuestion: When Dennis operates his lawnmower, he notices the engine makes a lot of noise. He also notices that the engine gets very hot. Which best describes the heat and noise generated from the lawnmower? (A) a change in phase (B) thermal expansion (C) an increase in entropy (D) mechanical advantage\\n\\nCorrect answer (according to answer sheet): (C)\\n\\nGiven answer: (D)\\n\\nGiven explanation: 1) The question states that the lawnmower engine makes a lot of noise.\\n2) The question states that the lawnmower engine gets very hot.\\n3) Noise and heat are both forms of energy.\\n4) The noise and heat generated from the lawnmower are a result of the conversion of energy from the fuel to mechanical energy. [/INST]\\n\\n",
      "max_tokens": 256,
      "temperature": 0.8,
      "presence_penalty": 0,
      "frequency_penalty": 0
    }
  }' \
  https://api.replicate.com/v1/predictions