> No, that's their intent. A lot of GP's comments elsewhere are similarly malformed, like: "I was thinking same, had hobby project where I did uploaded csv to

> No, that's their intent. A lot of GP's comments elsewhere are similarly malformed, like: "I was thinking same, had hobby project where I did uploaded csv to DuckDb and then I use generate queries with chatgpt but building sematic layer top op duckdb sound much better." Still understandable, but enough that I suspect the mistakes in their above comment are also just mistakes, opposed to intentionally testing the model's response to broken grammar and cannibals that seemingly never eat anyone. > The solution for the above should be the minimum number of trips (three) taking two at a time to the other side, no extra stuff. I believe that's the wrong interpretation of what the author is probably asking. Ideally it should ask for clarification on what's meant. Barring that, I'd say it should interpret the question in the way that makes the most sense - assuming just invalid wording rather than both invalid wording and intentional trickery. (also, given the boat cannot make the return on its own, you'd still need more than three trips)