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.
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.
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.
@webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
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
Well, it’s certainly more elaborately wrong.
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.
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.
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.
@webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
Human error?
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