How is it wrong?
First it makes some assumptions about the question and answers the typical version of the riddle. Then it answers the trivial version where there are no additional items.
Seems like a complete and reasonable response to me.
GPT should’ve started with “if it’s only about a goat and a boat” instead of going through the whole goat wolf cabbage puzzle first. Now that would make it look smarter
Ah, I hadn’t read that anymore. I thought, it assumed that it was about the cabbage+wolf riddle and that would be the rest of its blathering.
@[email protected]
I still take points of for assuming its a puzzle but it does at the end it does mention they can just cross if there are no other items to complicate the scenario.
Well, it’s certainly more elaborate
ly wrong.How is it wrong? First it makes some assumptions about the question and answers the typical version of the riddle. Then it answers the trivial version where there are no additional items. Seems like a complete and reasonable response to me.
GPT should’ve started with “if it’s only about a goat and a boat” instead of going through the whole goat wolf cabbage puzzle first. Now that would make it look smarter
Ah, I hadn’t read that anymore. I thought, it assumed that it was about the cabbage+wolf riddle and that would be the rest of its blathering.
@[email protected]
Human error?
Where is it wrong?
I still take points of for assuming its a puzzle but it does at the end it does mention they can just cross if there are no other items to complicate the scenario.
It’s still wrong because between 4 and 5 it doesn’t say it leaves the goat on the original side. That’s only implied because of the constraints.