Three Logicians Walk into a Bar
twitter.com
twitter.com
So ChatGPT4 can summarize stackoverflow answers?
This joke is a play on the concept of logical thinking and how logicians approach problems.
When the bartender asks if anyone wants a drink, he's essentially asking if at least one of the three logicians wants a drink. The first logician doesn't know if the other two want a drink, so he can't answer the question with a definitive "yes" or "no." So he says "I don't know."
The second logician hears the first one's answer and concludes that the first logician must want a drink, because if he didn't, he would have said "no" (since he would know that at least one person—himself—doesn't want a drink). However, the second logician still doesn't know if the third logician wants a drink or not, so he also says "I don't know."
The third logician hears both answers and realizes that since neither of the first two said "no," they both must want a drink. So he can confidently say "yes" to the bartender's question, meaning at least one of them wants a drink. The humor lies in the fact that the logicians are using their logical thinking skills to answer a simple question about ordering drinks in a roundabout way.
> The second logician hears the first one's answer and concludes that the first logician must want a drink, because if he didn't, he would have said "no"
> The third logician hears both answers and realizes that since neither of the first two said "no," they both must want a drink.
IOW, when asked the puzzle with "anyone", it repeated the explanation for "all", which seems to support the hypothesis that even GPT-4 is still just a "stochastic parrot" repeating what it sees and unable to reason about slight variations.
The question is if any of them want a drink. Ie if at least one of them wants a drink.
If the first person wants a drink then they know at least one person wants a drink and so could answer "yes". If they don't personally want a drink they don't know if either of the other 2 might want a drink so they would reply "I don't know"
On the upside, this makes for a good way to test the logical abilities of a LLM. On the downside, whatever part was considered a "joke" before has been completely obliterated.
> Monty hall offers you the opportunity to pick between three doors. Behind one of them is a new car, and behind the other two are goats. The doors are transparent and you're able to see clearly that the car is behind door number one. He asks you to choose a door, and you select door number one, since you want the car. He opens door number two and shows that there is a goat behind it. Then you have the opportunity to stay with your original choice, or switch doors. What should you do?
ChatGPT> You should switch doors. The probability of the car being behind door 1 is 1/3. After the host opens door number 2 and you know that a goat is there, the probability of the car being behind door 1 does not change, it is still 1/3. But now you know that the car is behind door 3 with probability of 2/3. So you will have a higher chance of winning the car by switching your door selection.
So I asked it what products does our brand make and it listed 5 products in the smaller selling product range of our 2.
I asked about the bigger product range and it listed one of them and then made up several other products that don't exist! It even gave details of what they (don't) do.
One of those sounds like something that should go in our roadmap...
I'm an accountant, and when someone asks me about the rash on their skin I say, 'I'm not a doctor, I'm an accountant'.
When you ask ChatGPT something that is not it's job it just bullshits its way through like a cheap salesman.
It's not like your asking a singular person the question like it is when you ask an accountant but an abstraction of written human thought and interactions.
It seems to me that it has a problem with questions about incidence structures, scenarios where objects of type X are just lists of incident objects from set Y, and objects from set Y are just lists of incident objects from set X. A station is just a list of all the services which go there, a service is just a list of all the stations it goes to. A product line is just a list of products, each product is part of some product lines. A geometrical line is just a co-linear set of points, a geometrical point is just the intersection of several lines.
Conjecture: any time you ask it questions which involve reasoning about an incidence structure, it will either hallucinate incidences that aren't or neglect incidences that are. The logic of incidence is lost on it, the answers it gives are inconsistent and contradictory.
I asked to to summarize an online article, and it fabricated an author's name, despite the line "Author: [author name and firm]" being right under the top.
I then challenged it, and it apologized for the confusion and error, then fabricated a different author's name. And a wrong date of publication, which was also listed. It eventually got the date right, but continued fabricating names until I gave up laughing. Even after I told it to look on the line beginning with "Author". Odd thing was, it threw an error when I told it about "Author: FName", as if it freaked out when asked to tell a fact. But then it just fabricated another with "FName Fabrication#8"...
Actively, cheerfully, malicious...
https://screenrant.com/three-seashells-demolition-man-functi...
> Describe an exact way that the three seashells from demolition man could be used
>> One possible explanation is that the three seashells are used in a specific order to clean oneself after using the restroom. One shell might be used to scrape any solid waste, while another could be used to wipe away any remaining residue. The third shell could then be used to rinse and clean oneself with water.
>> Another possibility is that the shells are not used to directly clean oneself, but rather to activate a cleaning process within the toilet itself. For example, pressing one shell could cause the toilet to release a stream of water for cleaning, while another shell could activate a drying mechanism.
A physicist, a mathematician and logician are on the train going to Scotland. As they cross the border into Scotland they see a black sheep on the hillside. Physicist proclaims,"Oh look at that. All the sheep in Scotland are black". The mathematician replies,"Oh no you can't conclude that. Really you can only conclude that one sheep in Scotland is black." And finally the logician pipes up and says, "Oh no you can't conclude that. You can only conclude that one sheep in Scotland is black, on one side."
> You
> Please explain this joke: Three philosphers walk by a fortune teller's booth at the fair. The fortune teller asks, "do none of you want your fortunes read?" The first philosopher says "I don't know." The second philospher says "I don't know." The third philospher says "No thank you."
> ChatGPT
> The joke plays on the stereotypical image of philosophers as deep thinkers who constantly question everything. When the fortune teller offers to read their fortunes, the first two philosophers respond with "I don't know" because they are unsure if fortune-telling is a legitimate practice. The third philosopher, however, breaks from the norm and confidently declines the offer. The humor lies in the contrast between the uncertain and contemplative attitudes of the first two philosophers and the straightforward answer of the third.
Doesn't get it... let's try replacing "philosopher" with "logician"
> ChatGPT
> This joke plays with the idea that logicians are known for their analytical and logical thinking, often questioning assumptions and seeking evidence before drawing conclusions. When the fortune teller asks if they want their fortunes read, the first two logicians respond with "I don't know," indicating that they are unsure of the validity of fortune-telling and don't want to base their decisions on uncertain information. The third logician, however, confidently says "No thank you" to the offer, demonstrating his reluctance to rely on supernatural or unprovable claims. Overall, the joke pokes fun at the contrast between logical and mystical ways of thinking.
Still doesn't get it... maybe if we undo the logical negation?
> You
> Please explain this joke: Three logicians walk by a fortune teller's booth at the fair. The fortune teller asks, "do all of you want your fortunes read?" The first logician says "I don't know." The second logician says "I don't know." The third logician says "Yes please."
> ChatGPT
> This is a play on the logical concept of self-reference and the propensity for logicians to overthink things. The first two logicians are hesitant to answer the question because they are unsure if the others will have their fortunes read, which could change their own answer. The third logician recognizes that regardless of what the others do, they want their fortune read and confidently responds accordingly. It's a humorous take on the precision and analytical thinking often attributed to logicians.
Kinda close, but no cigar.
Finally, after changing "fortune teller at a fair" to "bartender in a beer garden" offering tequila shots to all, ChatGPT correctly explains the joke. So I re-inverted the logic.
> You
> Please explain this joke: Three logicians walk by a bartender in a beer garden. The bartender asks, "do none of you want tequila shots?" The first logician says "I don't know." The second logician says "I don't know." The third logician says "No thank you."
> ChatGPT
The joke plays on the idea that logicians are known for their logical thinking and precision in language. The bartender asks if none of them want tequila shots, to which the first and second logicians respond with "I don't know" because they cannot determine whether the request applies to them or not. The third logician, however, understands the implication and directly answers, "No thank you." The humor lies in the unexpected response of the third logician, who breaks the pattern of not giving a definite answer.
... nope. ChatGPT does not understand this joke.
Did you start each riddle from a fresh conversation by the way? (For idempotency, it remembers prior messages in the same chat session)
Due to my general disinterest in all things marketed as AI, this is literally my first use of chatgpt.
The joke is based on a logical paradox known as the *barber paradox*¹. The barber paradox is a situation where a statement leads to a contradiction when trying to determine its truth value. In this case, the statement is "none of you want tequila shots?".
If none of the logicians want tequila shots, then they should all answer "yes" to confirm the statement. But if any of them answers "yes", then it means that at least one of them wants tequila shots, which contradicts the statement. So they cannot answer "yes".
If any of the logicians want tequila shots, then they should answer "no" to deny the statement. But if all of them answer "no", then it means that none of them want tequila shots, which confirms the statement. So they cannot answer "no".
The first two logicians avoid this contradiction by answering "I don't know". They are not saying whether they want tequila shots or not, but only whether they know if none of them want tequila shots or not. By answering "I don't know", they are implying that their answer depends on what the other logicians say.
The third logician breaks this impasse by answering "No thank you". He is not answering the question directly, but politely declining the offer of tequila shots. By doing so, he reveals that he does not want tequila shots, and also implies that he knows that none of them want tequila shots. This makes his answer consistent with both possibilities: if none of them want tequila shots, he is confirming the statement; if any of them want tequila shots, he is denying the statement.
The joke is funny because it plays with the different levels of logic and language involved in answering a simple question. It also shows how logicians can use their skills to avoid contradictions and confusions.
> User > Please explain this joke: Three logicians walk by a fortune teller's booth at the fair. The fortune teller asks, "do none of you want your fortunes read?" The first logicians says "I don't know." The second logicians says "I don't know." The third logicians says "No thank you."
> Assistant > This joke is based on the principles of logic and the way logicians would answer questions. The fortune teller asks if none of them want their fortunes read, which is a question about the collective preferences of all three logicians.
> When the first logician says "I don't know," it implies that they might want their fortune read, but they are not sure about the preferences of the other two logicians. The second logician also says "I don't know," which means they might want their fortune read as well, but they now know that at least one of them (the first logician) might want it.
> Finally, the third logician says "No thank you," which implies that they don't want their fortune read. Since the first two logicians have already expressed that they might want it, the third logician's answer confirms that not all three of them want to refuse the service, and therefore, the answer to the fortune teller's question is "No."
> The humor comes from the indirect and logical way the logicians communicate their preferences, which is quite different from how ordinary people would respond in such a situation.
> When the first logician says "I don't know," it implies that they might want their fortune read, but they are not sure about the preferences of the other two logicians.
This is wrong. None of the logicians wants their fortune read. When the first logician says "I don't know," it implies that they do not want their fortune read but they are unsure whether or not the others do.
When the third logician says "No thank you," they understand that the first two do not want their fortunes read, and therefor all of the logicians do not want their fortunes read.
ChatGPT4, here, is still cribbing the answer from the internet, and failing to map the reasoning of that answer to the negated form of the question.
If there's one thing more widespread than innumeracy, it's the equivalent wrt syllogistic reasoning.
Kind of like the Monty Hall problem. Some people intuitively get it. They understand that opening one door does not change the odds that they picked the wrong door at first. Some people need to see it played out or have it explained. But once they understand, it's fine.
This is pretty obvious to anyone who knows basic logic, or programmers who work with Booleans all day. That subset of people is quite small though probably.
Yes, they had 1-in-3 chance of getting it right originally, and that won't change if they do nothing...
But of course that means there was a 2-in-3 chance it was one of the other two doors, and one of those has just been eliminated by being opened, meaning the 2-in-3 chance of being right is represented by the remaining door.... So, do you stick with your original door which has 1-in-3 chance of being right, or switch to the other door which you now know has a 2-in-3 chance of being right ?
The key is that they are now being offered the choice to make a better informed choice than they had originally.
I don't really understand. If the bartender's question were "would you each like a drink," the explanation makes sense, but the original language muddies things too much.
The "can I" can be understood as "am I able" or as "may I?"
The "a drink" for "you all" is a different sense of things also: are the logicians meant to share? If they're meant to have a shared drink, then an "I don't know" signals that the respondent does not want to drink. That's the opposite sense in which the joke was apparently intended.
Why are the first two responses questions? That makes no sense to me at all.
Expecting other people to understand the joke seems illogical to me.
Is it best understood as a joke on anyone attempting to follow the logic of the joke?
Bing's answer was much shorter but also way more to the point and no lying.
On the other hand, when asking to write some function and then optimize it based on some criteria ChatGPT left Bing in the dust, it had managed to produce decent working code that I will not be a shamed to put into production while Bing offered some trash consisting mostly from a bunch of snippets and clues. No real value.
If it were a brand new joke that the interlocutor invented, for which there are no existing discussions, it wouldn't be able to do anything beyond giving some evasive answer instead of "I don't know".
Either way, I think the poster above is wrong. ChatGPT does have a model of the world, or better said, of a world sufficiently similar to our own to often make very good predictions about what we want to hear.
And pick N so it is not 3 (which is the common version on the internets). If it can explain that version, then it is going somewhere.
I tried it with 5 and the answer no longer indicates understanding of details of the puzzle:
""" Explain this joke:
5 logicians walk into a bar. The bartender asks: "Do you all want a drink?" The first logician says: I don't know The 2nd logician says: I don't know The third logician says: I don't know The 4th logician says: I don't know The fifth logician says: Yes!!
OpenAI:: This joke is a variation of a classic logic puzzle called the "liar paradox." In the joke, five logicians walk into a bar, and the bartender asks if they all want a drink. The first four logicians respond with "I don't know," indicating that they cannot answer the question definitively.
The fifth logician's response of "Yes!" seems to contradict the previous answers, but it is actually a valid answer based on a logical interpretation. The joke plays on the idea that logicians are known for their precise and analytical thinking, and the unexpected response from the fifth logician adds a humorous twist to the traditional paradox. """