3 ms·

I think most people would answer with whatever color their local bears are and won't even know about the polar bear riddle. > in the case of riddles, it doesn'

by Strom 4y ago

I think most people would answer with whatever color their local bears are and won't even know about the polar bear riddle. > in the case of riddles, it doesn't matter that there are no trains in the Arctic in reality That's quite the claim. Riddles aren't constrained to reality? Well then the polar bear one can be answerd with purple too.

taberiand 4y ago
No it's not quite the claim, because the question is nonsense as a riddle - if it's really about polar bears then the talk about trains and windows and speed is all irrelevant and can be discarded. Which is exactly what ChatGPT did. And if that turns the riddle into some silly gotcha then whatever, it's a bad riddle. And as you point out, the average person would also be confused - "I don't know, purple?" would be a reasonable response. Because the question is dumb in the first place
- Strom 4y ago
  This is about whether you incorporate outside context or not. Knowing about train tracks is not that different from knowing about magnetic poles or the common habitats of various bears. All these pieces of data are fairly basic to an educated person. Both the polar bear riddle and my variation of it depend on this body of knowledge. If you don't incorporate outside context at all, then things start to get confusing quite quickly. What even is a bear? That information wasn't provided! What color is it? Well, what even is color. None were defined. See, it gets ridiculous fast. You clearly need to depend on knowledge that is not presented. Knowing about different colors or different bear habitats is common. Neither needs to be defined in the question. In the end, both of these bear riddles test whether the answerer considered more than one degree of separation. The ability to consider second order effects and beyond [1] is a sign of an intelligent person. Not every human passes. -- [1] https://fs.blog/second-order-thinking/ https://fs.blog/second-order-thinking/

by Strom 4y ago

taberiand 4y ago

No it's not quite the claim, because the question is nonsense as a riddle - if it's really about polar bears then the talk about trains and windows and speed is all irrelevant and can be discarded. Which is exactly what ChatGPT did. And if that turns the riddle into some silly gotcha then whatever, it's a bad riddle. And as you point out, the average person would also be confused - "I don't know, purple?" would be a reasonable response. Because the question is dumb in the first place

Strom 4y ago
This is about whether you incorporate outside context or not. Knowing about train tracks is not that different from knowing about magnetic poles or the common habitats of various bears. All these pieces of data are fairly basic to an educated person. Both the polar bear riddle and my variation of it depend on this body of knowledge. If you don't incorporate outside context at all, then things start to get confusing quite quickly. What even is a bear? That information wasn't provided! What color is it? Well, what even is color. None were defined. See, it gets ridiculous fast. You clearly need to depend on knowledge that is not presented. Knowing about different colors or different bear habitats is common. Neither needs to be defined in the question. In the end, both of these bear riddles test whether the answerer considered more than one degree of separation. The ability to consider second order effects and beyond [1] is a sign of an intelligent person. Not every human passes. -- [1] https://fs.blog/second-order-thinking/ https://fs.blog/second-order-thinking/