The question is if any of them want a drink. Ie if at least one of them wants a drink.
If the first person wants a drink then they know at least one person wants a drink and so could answer "yes". If they don't personally want a drink they don't know if either of the other 2 might want a drink so they would reply "I don't know"
Correct. The original phrasing is a question of universality, the new phrasing is one of existence. Gpt4 continued to explain the joke in terms of the former when it should have been able to adjust for the latter. It has never heard the latter, but it sounded close enough.
On the upside, this makes for a good way to test the logical abilities of a LLM. On the downside, whatever part was considered a "joke" before has been completely obliterated.
> The second logician hears the first one's answer and concludes that the first logician must want a drink, because if he didn't, he would have said "no"
> The third logician hears both answers and realizes that since neither of the first two said "no," they both must want a drink.
IOW, when asked the puzzle with "anyone", it repeated the explanation for "all", which seems to support the hypothesis that even GPT-4 is still just a "stochastic parrot" repeating what it sees and unable to reason about slight variations.
Humor is only coincidentally about being correct, since we all know horses have fore-hooves and two rear hooves, leading to the funny fact that horses have six hooves.
The question is if any of them want a drink. Ie if at least one of them wants a drink.
If the first person wants a drink then they know at least one person wants a drink and so could answer "yes". If they don't personally want a drink they don't know if either of the other 2 might want a drink so they would reply "I don't know"