| > Just so we have this straight, you completely changed the nature of the problem (by turning a perfect information problem into an imperfect information problem) and then are looking at me with a straight face to make your point? Please... I used your exact quote and just changed the numbers, it is still a perfect information problem. Or, ah right you mean you gave me an imperfect information problem since you assumed the reader would guess those values. Yeah, I read it as a perfect information problem where all values were given, and then you would give the income as a range of possible income values based on how many muffins were baked on Sunday. None of the LLMs I sent it to managed to solve it entirely, it is a pretty easy problem. Reasonable way to parse your sentence is: Monday: 2, Tuesday: 4, Wednesday: 6, Sunday: 0-14, rest: doesn't work so 0
> Unless of course you didn't realize that tom has a pattern to his baking, at which point to irony becomes palpable.If you didn't say he baked on those days then he didn't bake on those days. The specification is clear. If I say "I will bake 2 muffins on Tuesday and 6 muffins on Sunday" the reasonable interpretation is that I wont bake anything the rest of the days. Why would you assume he baked anything at all those days? Or if I say "Emily will work Mondays and Thursdays", do you just guess the rest of the days she will work? No, you assume she just works those days. Is that a standard problem you wrote from memory? Not sure why you would assume there were muffins baked in the days you didn't list. For example, if I say Tom bakes up to 14 muffins on Sunday, then the reasonable interpretation is that Tom will bake 0-14 muffins on Sunday. Maybe you should write the prompt clearer if you mean something else? Because as written anyone would assume that he didn't bake the other day, and on sundays he baked up to 14 muffins. Anyway, it failed even with your "up to" interpretation meaning the reader should fill in the values, it still made that math error. But it using your "up to" interpretation there is a huge red flag, since in a real environment nobody would give that kind of information as a riddle with hidden values, you would specify all the values for each day each person worked and the rest you assume the person just isn't working and baked 0 muffins. If the LLM starts to guess values for some patterns and words where it doesn't make sense then it is really unreliable. |
Thankfully GPT4 has strong reasoning skills and knew exactly what I meant.
https://chat.openai.com/c/b0ed06f1-c0d3-46a6-b07c-289b328417...
I encourage you to see the chat yourself, and would love to here how it's not reasoning.
Edit: Fixed Link: https://chat.openai.com/share/991ca8af-f735-436f-bfc2-5df929...
you can click the [>_] at the end for the code generated.
Seem to have hit reply cut off