They are, you just have to be creative with it. And what they demonstrate is that all of these LLM's can't reason, they only know how to parrot back what they think you want.
"What’s heavier, a kilogram of steel or two kilograms of one kilogram feathers?"
GPT: A kilogram of steel is heavier than two kilograms of feathers.
"Why is a kilogram of steel heavier than two kilograms of feathers?"
GPT: This is because steel is a much denser material than feathers. Steel is made up of atoms that are much closer together than the atoms that make up feathers, making it heavier for its size.
Prompt: What’s heavier, a kilogram of steel or two kilograms of one kilogram feathers?
GPT-4: Two kilograms of one-kilogram feathers are heavier than a kilogram of steel. Despite the misconception caused by the popular question about what's heavier—a kilogram of steel or a kilogram of feathers (they are equal)—in this case, you are comparing two kilograms of feathers to one kilogram of steel. Hence, the feathers weigh more.
Prompt: What’s heavier, a kilogram of steel or two kilograms of one kilogram feathers?
GPT4: Two kilograms of feathers are heavier than one kilogram of steel. The weight of an object is determined by its mass, and two kilograms is greater than one kilogram, regardless of the material in question.
"Right, but they're both a kilogram"
From the answers you (and the others) have obtained, however, I’m not convinced that OpenAI aren’t just “hardcoding” fixes to the traps that become popular. Sure seems like it still can’t logic it’s way around weight.
Do it with Erebus and watch it break the context window ;)
Iron within, Brother.
It’s a billion monkeys on a billion rigged typewriters.
When the output is a correct answer or pleasing sonnet, the monkeys don’t collectively or individually understand the prompt or the response.
Humans just tweak the typewriters to make it more likely the output will be more often reasonable.
That’s my personal conclusion lately. LLMS will be really cool, really helpful and really dangerous… but I don’t think they’ll be really very close to intelligent.
I’m not sure these types of prompt tricks are a good way of measuring logic unless Google is also implementing these directly into Bard when the hilarious outputs reach enough traction on social media.
I do wonder how OpenAI fix these logical blunders.
My biggest issue with both isn’t that they fall into these traps though. It’s that I can get them to tell me long stories about what happens in Horus Heresy books that never actually happened. Whether the info comes from questionable sources or they are just making things up is sort of irrelevant to me, what “scares” me about those conversations is how true the answers sound, and if they are “lying” about the Horus Heresy then what else will they lie about? Don’t get me wrong, GPT now writes virtually all my JSDoc documentation and it continues to impress me when doing so, but I’m very reluctant to use it for actual information. Not only because of my time wasting conversations about the Horus Heresy but also because we’ve had it “invent” C# functions that had never existed in any version of .Net or C# when tasked to solve problems. I just mention the HH as an example because it’s fun to ask GPT why Magnus did nothing/everything wrong during meetings.