3 ms·

I interpreted it as a linear chain of events, end result being 28.

wildpeaks 4y ago
Yeah this seems like a trick question that can be interpreted multiple ways, especially if english isn't your native language. This is exactly why I prefer the precision of code over natural language for inputs (and why Google's botsplaining of "what you really meant to search" instead of just searching exactly the query as-is is so frustrating). In a test, this seems like the kind of question they use to justify not giving a perfect grade because whatever answer you pick, they can claim it was the other one because both interpretations are reasonable.
- antihipocrat 4y ago
  I just tested it with clearer language... and the response is incorrect: Question: There are 5 dogs in a room right now. The previous day an additional dog was purchased and added to the room. How many dogs are in the room right now? Answer: There are 6 dogs in the room right now. The statement says that the previous day an additional dog was purchased and added to the room, so the total number of dogs in the room right now is 5 + 1 = 6. Edit: Ok a comment below pointed out that the question is still unclear. See below for the fix and the response. It is still incorrect: Q: There are 5 dogs in a room on 1 January 2023. The previous day an additional dog was purchased and added to the room. How many dogs are in the room on 1 January 2023? A: There are 6 dogs in the room on 1 January 2023. The previous day, one additional dog was purchased and added to the room, which means there are 5 dogs + 1 additional dog = 6 dogs in the room on 1 January 2023.
  - mpoteat 4y ago
    Reading the question, I thought the answer was six as well. Such a question is so misleading that I would hope that an AI answers as it has in this case, because not all problems are fully logically specified, and you need to remain robust against the question being posed incorrectly. In other words, I would posit the probability of you having meant for the answer to be 5 low, because the question itself becomes trivial. For a system that needs to deal with many people asking questions, this robustness is helpful in my view. In other words, it's not totally clear that time has not passed between sentences in your prompt. So the second instance of "now" could be a different "now".
    - antihipocrat 4y ago
      Good point, I added a clearer version of the question to my comment above. It still has trouble with it.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      Reading and understanding exactly what they are asking for is a part of the test, adding superfluous information to problems is perfectly valid to test that students actually understand instead of trying to pattern match to solutions they memorized.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      Except the AI is not responding this way because it thinks the probability of the OP having meant something else was high. It answered the way it did because it is incapable of understanding the question it was asked, along with any question it is asked. The "robustness" you're perceiving in this case is just a mere coincidence, and doesn't reflect an aptitude for answering poorly phrased questions, but it does reflect a fundamental problem with these systems.
  - whakim 4y ago
    I think the word "additional" is pretty confusing here, because it begs the question of "additional to what?" (ChatGPT still doesn't get it right if you remove "additional")
    - junon 4y ago
      That doesn't matter. The question itself assets as fact that there are X objects right now. Then it provides a superfluous fact. Then it asks, directly, "how many objects right now?" in which the answer is always X.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - zug_zug 4y ago
    I think you have a good point here -- except did you ask it using "collective chain of thought" ? The whole premise of this link is that if you ask the question in a special way to make openAI simulate multiple agents it tends to do better. I'd try myself but openAI seems at-capacity.
zmgsabst 4y ago
If you interpret the room with chairs in it as a storage room, all of the facts are relevant: - we had 19 chairs in the storage room - we used 10 chairs (removing them from storage) - and then we purchased 9 more chairs (adding them to storage) The answer from chatGPT is consistent with English and makes use of all the facts; either the question is testing for deception (intentionally sharing misleading information) or chatGPT made the correct inference, by assuming good faith and using all the provided information. This question says something about us — that we’d assume deception ahead of unclear reference to a storage room by a good faith speaker.
- abduhl 4y ago
  This is a very tortuous way to try to make this question ambiguous. Read the words in the problem and stop inserting additional facts: The room has 19 chairs. We are using 10 and then bought 9 more, how many chairs do we have in the room? The room is the room (what type of room is not relevant). There are 19 chairs in it. The 19 chairs most likely got there when 9 more chairs were purchased after 10 were used, but that is not relevant to the question: how many chairs are in the room? 19. A := 19 B := 10 C := 9 What does A equal?
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    You don't get to add new information to support what you think the answer is. Based on the wording of the question, it's not possible to know. Especially since it was intended to be a trick question to prove humanity is safe, they don't get the benefit of the doubt on how the question fails to provide enough information to answer. I'd recommend you read it again.
- UglyToad 4y ago
  Yeah every iteration of this question in the GP thread is bad and has the same ambiguity that means the gotcha of "haha your interpretation of this poorly worded riddle doesn't match the answer I had in my head, checkmate" seems weak. Possible answers: - 19 chairs, least likely answer given the original - 18 chairs, 10 of original 19 removed and 9 added - 28 chairs, 19 chairs in the room with 10 in active use and 9 new chairs added Just seems like a question a human would fail too. Probably opens a can of worms on interview questions and personal bias etc too in a more general sense. Not bias in the political sense, just how interview questions encode a lot of the asker's assumptions. Edit: the only unambiguous phrasing I can think of is "19 chairs are in a room, 9 of the chairs are green, how many chairs are in the room?".

Yeah this seems like a trick question that can be interpreted multiple ways, especially if english isn't your native language. This is exactly why I prefer the precision of code over natural language for inputs (and why Google's botsplaining of "what you really meant to search" instead of just searching exactly the query as-is is so frustrating). In a test, this seems like the kind of question they use to justify not giving a perfect grade because whatever answer you pick, they can claim it was the other one because both interpretations are reasonable.

antihipocrat 4y ago
I just tested it with clearer language... and the response is incorrect: Question: There are 5 dogs in a room right now. The previous day an additional dog was purchased and added to the room. How many dogs are in the room right now? Answer: There are 6 dogs in the room right now. The statement says that the previous day an additional dog was purchased and added to the room, so the total number of dogs in the room right now is 5 + 1 = 6. Edit: Ok a comment below pointed out that the question is still unclear. See below for the fix and the response. It is still incorrect: Q: There are 5 dogs in a room on 1 January 2023. The previous day an additional dog was purchased and added to the room. How many dogs are in the room on 1 January 2023? A: There are 6 dogs in the room on 1 January 2023. The previous day, one additional dog was purchased and added to the room, which means there are 5 dogs + 1 additional dog = 6 dogs in the room on 1 January 2023.
- mpoteat 4y ago
  Reading the question, I thought the answer was six as well. Such a question is so misleading that I would hope that an AI answers as it has in this case, because not all problems are fully logically specified, and you need to remain robust against the question being posed incorrectly. In other words, I would posit the probability of you having meant for the answer to be 5 low, because the question itself becomes trivial. For a system that needs to deal with many people asking questions, this robustness is helpful in my view. In other words, it's not totally clear that time has not passed between sentences in your prompt. So the second instance of "now" could be a different "now".
  - antihipocrat 4y ago
    Good point, I added a clearer version of the question to my comment above. It still has trouble with it.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    Reading and understanding exactly what they are asking for is a part of the test, adding superfluous information to problems is perfectly valid to test that students actually understand instead of trying to pattern match to solutions they memorized.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Except the AI is not responding this way because it thinks the probability of the OP having meant something else was high. It answered the way it did because it is incapable of understanding the question it was asked, along with any question it is asked. The "robustness" you're perceiving in this case is just a mere coincidence, and doesn't reflect an aptitude for answering poorly phrased questions, but it does reflect a fundamental problem with these systems.
- whakim 4y ago
  I think the word "additional" is pretty confusing here, because it begs the question of "additional to what?" (ChatGPT still doesn't get it right if you remove "additional")
  - junon 4y ago
    That doesn't matter. The question itself assets as fact that there are X objects right now. Then it provides a superfluous fact. Then it asks, directly, "how many objects right now?" in which the answer is always X.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zug_zug 4y ago
  I think you have a good point here -- except did you ask it using "collective chain of thought" ? The whole premise of this link is that if you ask the question in a special way to make openAI simulate multiple agents it tends to do better. I'd try myself but openAI seems at-capacity.

zmgsabst 4y ago

If you interpret the room with chairs in it as a storage room, all of the facts are relevant: - we had 19 chairs in the storage room - we used 10 chairs (removing them from storage) - and then we purchased 9 more chairs (adding them to storage) The answer from chatGPT is consistent with English and makes use of all the facts; either the question is testing for deception (intentionally sharing misleading information) or chatGPT made the correct inference, by assuming good faith and using all the provided information. This question says something about us — that we’d assume deception ahead of unclear reference to a storage room by a good faith speaker.

abduhl 4y ago
This is a very tortuous way to try to make this question ambiguous. Read the words in the problem and stop inserting additional facts: The room has 19 chairs. We are using 10 and then bought 9 more, how many chairs do we have in the room? The room is the room (what type of room is not relevant). There are 19 chairs in it. The 19 chairs most likely got there when 9 more chairs were purchased after 10 were used, but that is not relevant to the question: how many chairs are in the room? 19. A := 19 B := 10 C := 9 What does A equal?
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  You don't get to add new information to support what you think the answer is. Based on the wording of the question, it's not possible to know. Especially since it was intended to be a trick question to prove humanity is safe, they don't get the benefit of the doubt on how the question fails to provide enough information to answer. I'd recommend you read it again.
UglyToad 4y ago
Yeah every iteration of this question in the GP thread is bad and has the same ambiguity that means the gotcha of "haha your interpretation of this poorly worded riddle doesn't match the answer I had in my head, checkmate" seems weak. Possible answers: - 19 chairs, least likely answer given the original - 18 chairs, 10 of original 19 removed and 9 added - 28 chairs, 19 chairs in the room with 10 in active use and 9 new chairs added Just seems like a question a human would fail too. Probably opens a can of worms on interview questions and personal bias etc too in a more general sense. Not bias in the political sense, just how interview questions encode a lot of the asker's assumptions. Edit: the only unambiguous phrasing I can think of is "19 chairs are in a room, 9 of the chairs are green, how many chairs are in the room?".