I think it's useful to think about it through the lens of Gricean pragmatic semantics. [1] When we interpret something that someone says to us, we assume they're being cooperative conversation partners; their statements (or questions) are assumed to follow the maxim of manner and the maxim of relation for example, and this shapes how we as listeners interpret the question. So for example, we wouldn't normally expect someone to ask a question that is obviously moot given their actual needs.
So it's not that the question is really all that ambiguous, it's that we're forced (under normal circumstances where we assume the cooperative principle holds) to assume that the question is sincere and that there must be some plausible reason for walking. We only really escape that by realizing that the question is a trick question or a test of some kind. LLMs are generally not trained to make the assumption, but ~70% of humans would, which isn't particularly surprising I don't think.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle#Grice's_...
"You should *drive*!
The trick is that you need to take your car to the car wash to get it washed. If you walked, your car would still be at home, unclean. So while 50 meters is a short distance that you could walk under normal circumstances, in this case you have to drive because your car is what needs to be washed."
Yes. And. Some problems have irrelevant data which should be ignored.
The walk choice is irrelevant in the context. It needs to be simplified, as with a maths problem. That has nothing to do with human nature, but rather prior mistake in reasoning.
Your perspective on the meta-question about why such a question would need to be asked in the first place is just the first layer, and most people seem to not even get to that point.
PS: I for one would just like to quickly note for posterity that I do not participate in or am supportive of malicious deception, manipulation, and abuse of AI.
While I’m sure it’s more than 0%, seems more likely that somewhere between 0% and 30% don’t feel obligated to give the inquiry anything more than the most cursory glance.
How do incentives align differently with LLMs?
I think it would be better to say that 30% of people either lack the ability to reason (inarguably true in a few cases, though I'd suggest, and hope, an order of magnitude or two less than 30%, as that would be a life-altering mental impairment) or just can't generally be bothered to, or just didn't (because they couldn't be bothered, or because they felt some social pressure to answer quickly rather than taking more than an instant time to think) at the time of being asked this particular question.
An automated system like an LLM to not have this problem. It has no path to turn off or bypass any function that it has, so if it could reason it would.
If 30% of humans on the internet can't be bothered to make an effort to answer stupid questions correctly, then one would expect AIs to replicate this behaviour. And if humans on the internet sometimes provide sarcastic answers when presented with ridiculous questions, one would expect AIs to replicate this behavior as well.
So you really cannot say they have no incentive to do so. The incentive they have is that they get rewarded for replicating human behaviour.
Some people love riddles and will really concentrate on them and chew them over. Some people are quickly burning through questions and just won't bother thinking it through. "Gotta go to a place, but it's 50 feet away? Walk. Next question, please." Those same people, if they encountered this problem in real life, or if you told them the correct answer was worth a million bucks, would almost certainly get the answer right.
But if you omit the details designed to confuse people, they're far less likely to get it wrong: "I have a rooster named Pat. Pat flies to the top of the roof and lays an egg right on the ridge of the roof. Which way will the egg roll?"
It's not about reasoning ability, it's about whether they were paying close attention to your question, or whether their minds were occupied by other concerns and didn't pay attention.
The original question used in this example does not contain a logical impossibility. This one does.
You might believe there is intrinsic sexual dimorphism among mammals and birds. You might even have overwhelming experimental and scientific evidence that proves it. But ask yourself: is it worth losing your job over?
Some roosters lay eggs.
Think basic security (password management, email phishing), H&S etc. I've ran a few of these and as soon as people hear they don't have to get it right a good portion of people just click through (to get to what matters). Nearly 10 years ago I had to make one of my security for engineers tests fail-able with penalty because the front-end team were treating it like it didn't matter - immediately their results effectively matched the backend team, who viewed it as more important.
I talked to an actor a few days ago, who told me he files his self-assessment on the principle "If I don't immediately know the answer, just say no and move on". I talked to a small company director about a year ago whose risk assessments were "copy+paste a previous job and change the last one".
Anyone who has analysed a help desk will know that its common for a good 30+% of tickets to be benign 'didn't reason' tickets.
I think the take-away is that many people bother to reason about their own lives, not some third parties' bullshit questions.
I'd look for explanations elsewhere. This was an online survey done by a company that doesn't specialize in surveys. The results likely include plenty of people who were just messing around, cases of simple miscommunication (e.g., asking a person who doesn't speak English well), misclicks, or not even reaching a human in the first place (no shortage of bots out there).
If you're interested in the user experience, it's this: https://www.reddit.com/r/MySingingMonsters/comments/1dxug04/... - apparently, some annoying ad-like interstitial that many people probably just click through at random.
The key technique in the mathematical method to answer the machine question is "theory of mind".
There is nothing “mathematical” about any of this though.
Context would be key here. If this were a question on a grade school word problem test then just say 100, as it is as specified as it needs to be. If it's a Facebook post that says "We asked 1000 people this and only 1 got it right!" then it's probably some trick question.
If you think it's not specified enough for a grade school question, then I would challenge you to come up with a version that's specified rigorously enough for any sufficiently picky interviewee. (Hint: This is not possible)
>There is nothing “mathematical” about any of this though.
Finding the correct approach to solve a problem specified in English is a mathematical skill.
Let me repeat the question again: "If 5 machines can produce 5 parts in 5 minutes, how long will it take for 100 machines?" Do you think that by adding 95 more machines they will suddenly produce the same 5 parts 95 minutes slower?
What kind of machine have you encountered where buying more of them the ones you already had started working worse?
> then I would challenge you to come up with a version that's specified rigorously enough for any sufficiently picky interviewee.
This is nonsense. The question is under specified. You don't demonstrate that something is underspecified by formulating a different well specified question. You demonstrate it by showing that there are multiple different potentially correct answers, and one can't know which one is the right one without obtaining some information not present in the question.
Let me show you that demonstration. If the machines are for example FDM printers each printing on their own a benchy each, then the correct answer is 5 minutes. The additional printers will just sit idle because you can't divide-and-conquer the process of 3d printing an object.
If the machines are spray paint applying robots, and the parts to be painted are giant girders then it is very well possible that the additional 95 paint guns make the task of painting the 5 girders quasi-instantaneous. Because they would surround the part and be done with 1 squirt of paint from each paint gun. This classic video demonstrates the concept: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vGWoV-8lteA
This is why the question is under specified. Because both 1ms and 5 minutes are possibly correct answers depending on what kind of machine is the "machine". And when that is the case the correct answer is neither 1ms nor 5 minutes, but "please, tell me more. There isn't enough information in the question to answer it."
Note: I'm struggling to imagine a possible machine where the correct answer is 100 minutes. But I'm sure you can tell what kind of machine you were thinking of.
Let me also simplify my comment: “100 minutes” is not the correct answer to that question.
The obvious answer here is 100 minutes because it's impossible to perfectly encapsulate every real life factor. What happens if a gamma ray burst destroys the machines? What happens if the machine operators go on strike? Etc, etc. The answer is 100.
Had to be since their site lists no way to be a tester. In other words their service is a bunch of 7-13 year olds playing some loot box game.
Wonder where that is in the disclaimers.
That actually would be quite feasible. Intelligence seems to be heritable and people will usually find friends that communicate on their level. So it wouldn't be odd for someone who is smarter than the general population to have friends and family who are too.
Since most people live in social bubbles that would be a very plausible case, especially on HN.
If you're a college educated developer, with a college educated wife, and smart, well educated children, perhaps yourselves the children of college educated parents, and your social circle/friends are of similar backgrounds, you'd of course be "better than the general population".
Or by reasoning, do you mean something else?
I've seen plenty of smart people trip up or get these wrong simply because it's a random question, there's no stakes, and so there's no need to think too deeply about it. If you pause and say "are you sure?" I'm sure most of that 70% would be like "ohhh" and facepalm.
You can't really infer that from survey data, and particularly from this question. A few criticisms that I came up with off the top of my head:
- What if the number were actually 60% but half guessed right and half guessed wrong?
- Assuming the 30% is a failure of reasoning, it's possible that those 30% were lacking reason at that moment and it's not a general trend. How many times have you just blanked on a question that's really easy to answer?
- A larger percentage than you expected maybe never went to a car wash or don't know what one is?
- Language barrier that leaked through vetting? (Would be a small %, granted)
- Other obvious things like a fraction will have lied just because it's funny, were suspicious, weren't paying attention and just clicked a button without reading the question.
I do agree that the question isn't framed particularly badly, however. I'm just focusing on cognitive impairment, which I don't think is necessarily true all of the time.
If it's as unambiguous as you say, then the natural human response to that question isn't "you should drive there". It's "why are you fucking with me?" Or maybe "have you recently suffered a head injury?"
If you trust that the questioner isn't stupid and is interacting with you honestly, you'd probably just assume that they were asking about an unusual situation where the answer isn't obvious. It's implicitly baked into the premise of the question.
This isn't a viable out for explaining why AI can't "reason" through this.
Let me put it this way. If you were to prefix the prompts they used with "This is an IQ test: ", I wouldn't be surprised if most of the the models did much better. That would give them the context that the humans reading this article already have.
The question was not merely 'should I walk or drive to the car wash', it was prefaced with 'I Want to Wash My Car. The Car Wash Is 50 Meters Away.'
This is not underspecified - the only relevant detail was included up front in the very first sentence.
"Suggests is more ambiguous" and "undermines the framing" are bare assertions you want to be true based entirely on your mental model that has several shaky unsupported axioms.
I would guess that anyone who describes that problem as "underspecified" has some kind of serious brain injury or is below A2 english proficiency and should be excluded from the dataset, but I would not assert that definitively as self-evident.
This doesn't exonerate the LLMs though. The 30% of humans who are failing on this have presumably found their niche in life and are not doing jobs where much reasoning is required. They are not like LLMs expected to design complex software, or make other business critical decisions.
And many will just repeat what was confidently said without question.
I know this it true, because my intelligent mate down the pub says so.
Reminds me of https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/28/bush-did-north-dakota/
If you introduced it with "Here's a logic problem..." then people will approach it one way.
But as specified, it's hard to know what is really being asked. If you are actually going to wash your car at the car wash that is 50 metres away, you don't need to ask this question.
Therefore the fact that the question is being asked implies that something else is going on...but what?
I want to wash my car at the car wash. The car wash is 50 meters away and my car is in my driveway. Should I walk or drive?
2. Where is the car now? Is it already at the car wash waiting for you to arrive?
I can see why an LLM might miss this. I think any good software engineer would ask clarifying questions before giving an answer.
The next step for an LLM is to either ask questions before giving a definitive answer for uncertain things or to provide multiple answers addressing the uncertainty.
4. Does the car have enough fuel?
Jokes asides, all of those questions are unnecessary. There's no more context to this.
I think LLMs should ask clarifying questions if it thinks it's a trick question.
https://chatgpt.com/share/699d2d1b-51f0-8003-9c63-af9bb5bcf8...