[packet_nerd]

It clearly says he didn't see some of them either at all or as unicorns. The correct answer is 11.

Edit: I do see now that "He saw" kind of messes the question up. My intent would have been better expressed with "There were". But again this proves my point! GPT4 is able to (most of the time) correctly work through the poor wording and interpret the question the way I meant it, and I think the way most people would read it.

[2-718-281-828]

the correct answer is 14. there is no logic/linguistic/semantic reason why "he didn't see a purple unicorn" should refer to the purple unicorn that he (according to your statement) did see. "he saw a red ball, but he didn't see one ball: a red one. how many balls did he see?". also regarding the green one ... there is no _logical_ reason why a "magical" frog should be green ... one can debate long about your question but a semantically sound interpretation implies: the frog saw 14 unicorns and the frog is not green. anything else falls apart because if the frog is green then how could he have seen a green uni? which is what you wrote for context.

[packet_nerd]

Do you disagree with my claim that GPT-4 can perform some sort of basic reasoning about puzzles that aren't in it's training data?