[YetAnotherNick]

This is such a flawed puzzle. And GPT 4 answers it rightly. It is a long answer but the last sentence is "This is one possible scenario. However, there could be other scenarios based on the order in which balls are drawn. But in any case, the same logic can be applied to find the number of each color of ball left in the container."

[NovemberWhiskey]

The ability to identify that there isn't a simple closed form result is actually a key component of reasoning. Can you stick the answer it gives on a gist or something? The GPT 3.5 response is pure, self-contradictory word salad and of course delivered in a highly confident tone.

[TeMPOraL]

> The ability to identify that there isn't a simple closed form result is actually a key component of reasoning.

If that's the case, then most humans alive would fail to meet this threshold. Finding a general solution to a specific problem, and identifying whether or not there exist a closed-form solution, and even knowing these terms, are skills you're taught in higher education, and even the people who went through it are prone to forget all this unless they're applying those skills regularly in their life, which is a function of specific occupations.

[YetAnotherNick]

https://pastebin.com/r9bNi8GD

GPT 4 goes into detail about one example scenario, which most humans won't do, but it is technically correct answer as it said it depends on the order.

[Jensson]

Its answer isn't correct, this isn't a possible ending scenario:

- *Ending Scenario:* - Red Balls (RB): 0 (all have been drawn) - Blue Balls (BB): 50 (none have been drawn) - White Balls (WB): 0 (since no blue balls were drawn, no white balls were added) - Total Balls: 50

[albedoa]

> but it is technically correct answer as it said it depends on the order.

It should give you pause that you had to pick not only the line by which to judge the answer but the part of the line. The sentence immediately before that is objectively wrong:

> This is one possible scenario.

[NovemberWhiskey]

But the reasoning is total garbage, right?

It says the number of blue balls drawn is x and the number of red balls drawn is y, and then asserts x + y = 100, which is wrong.

Then it proceeds to "solve" an equation which reduces to x = x to conclude x = 0.

It then uses that to "prove" that y = 100, which is a problem as there are only 50 red balls in the container and nothing causes any more to be added.

It's like "mistakes bad students make in Algebra 1".