Hacker News Reader

True, but would it not make more sense to ask rather than assume and provide a long winded explanation?

And even if it was a typo and I meant to say rocks, the model will often assume a variety of metals and answer with those.

How it proceeds in the case of human error is going to be almost totally removed from its "intelligence," and almost totally related to its training.

I’m not claiming otherwise here. I’m claiming that it’s not a good test because a human would (almost certainly correctly) also skip past the double feather and answer the likely spirit of the question.

A human would probably say “did you mean a kg of feathers and a kg of lead?”