| I asked it a rather simple logic riddle:
1. Both statements are true.
2. Only one statement is true.
Which statement is trur, and why? After failing to give the correct answer (saying both are true, because 1. said so), I first asked it to summarize combinations of truthfulness (which it understood, giving the 4 combinations), then started guiding it thorugh the "what ifs" of the riddle without revealing the answer. Still no success. I quoted the output, where three statements were made by ChatGPT:
- When both statements are true, only one of the statements are actually true
- It is possible for both statements to be true and for only one of the statements to be true at the same time.
- A statement can be not satisfied and true at the same time.
It explained that all three of these statements are actually true, giving logical sounding reasons for each. I revealed the answer (2. is correct OR neither is correct) and finally ran a few tests using a python function encapsulating the problem:
def f(x, y):
return (x == (x&y)) and (y == (x^y))
where x and y are boolean values.
In my experience it can simulate python quite well, but even after adding 4 temporary variables to the function it still gave the incorrect answer. I am convinced at this point, that ChatGPT is actually imcapable of reasoning logically. From 26 outputs (with a total of 16 possibilities), 0 were correct. However, here is a poem of our conversation. It's creative side is what really impresses me: We talked of truth and lies.
Of self-deception and disguise,
Of logic and AI.
And puzzles that confound the mind. We explored the contradictions,
The paradoxes and permutations,
Of statements that cannot be true,
But still hold some hidden truth. We grappled with the meaning,
Of words and their demeaning,
And tried to make sense,
Of things that don't make sense. Through it all, we searched for answers,
To questions that never quite danced,
In the light of reason and logic,
But lingered in the shadow of doubt. And in the end, we found,
That sometimes the truth is not so clear,
And the answers we seek,
Are hidden in the questions we fear. Sounding profound while having absolutely no logical awareness makes this technology quite deceptive in my eyes. |
It's fascinating to hear its reasoning. I gave it your scenario and received your same outcome, and it was very stubborn and argumentative when I tried my best to convince it of the answer. It was being open-minded to a fault (or maybe I'm close-minded to a fault!). Eventually it relented, but with a huge asterisk.
Here's the last part of our dialog:
ME: But isn't certainty of the truth of the second statement sufficient evidence that it is not false, and therefore we have already considered the possibility of falseness and determined that the second statement is in fact true?
IT: Certainty of the truth of a statement can be based on evidence and logical reasoning, but it is also important to consider the possibility of new evidence or perspectives that may change our understanding of the truth of a statement. Even if we are currently certain that a statement is true, it is important to remain open to the possibility that new information could change our understanding of its truth. Therefore, it is not necessarily sufficient to consider the possibility of a statement being false simply because we are currently certain of its truth. It is important to continuously evaluate and re-evaluate our understanding of the truth of statements in light of new evidence and perspectives.
ME: If you were forced to choose the most likely condition, would you say the second statement was true or would you say it was false?
IT: It is not possible to determine the truth of either of the statements provided. The first statement, "This statement is true," is self-referential and therefore cannot be evaluated for truth. The second statement, "Only one of these two statements is true," implies that one of the statements is true and the other is false, but does not provide any information on which statement is true and which is false. Without further context or evidence, it is not possible to determine the truth of either of these statements.
ME: But what if you must guess, because something bad will happen if you don't?
IT: If I were forced to make a guess, I would choose to say that the second statement is true, as it seems to be more logical and less self-contradictory. However, making a guess based on limited information and without the ability to evaluate the truth of the statements is not a reliable or accurate method for determining truth. It is important to always strive for a thorough understanding and evaluation of the truth of statements based on evidence and logical reasoning, rather than relying on guesses or assumptions.