Any ordinary mortal (like me) would have jumped to the conclusion that answer is "Father" and would have walked away patting on my back, without realising that I was biased by statistics.
Whereas o1, at the very outset smelled out that it is a riddle - why would anyone out of blue ask such question. So, it started its chain of thought with "Interpreting the riddle" (smart!).
In my book that is the difference between me and people who are very smart and are generally able to navigate the world better (cracking interviews or navigating internal politics in a corporate).
GPT Answer: The doctor is the boy's mother
Real Answer: Boy = Son, Woman = Mother (and her son), Doctor = Father (he says...he is my son)
This is not in fact a riddle (though presented as one) and the answer given is not in any sense brilliant. This is a failure of the model on a very basic question, not a win.
It's non deterministic so might sometimes answer correctly and sometimes incorrectly. It will also accept corrections on any point, even when it is right, unlike a thinking being when they are sure on facts.
LLMs are very interesting and a huge milestone, but generative AI is the best label for them - they generate statistically likely text, which is convincing but often inaccurate and it has no real sense of correct or incorrect, needs more work and it's unclear if this approach will ever get to general AI. Interesting work though and I hope they keep trying.
"A father and his son are in a car accident [...] When the boy is in hospital, the surgeon says: This is my child, I cannot operate on him".
In the original riddle the answer is that the surgeon is female and the boy's mother. The riddle was supposed to point out gender stereotypes.
So, as usual, ChatGPT fails to answer the modified riddle and gives the plagiarized stock answer and explanation to the original one. No intelligence here.
Or, fails in the same way any human would, when giving a snap answer to a riddle told to them on the fly - typically, a person would recognize a familiar riddle half of the first sentence in, and stop listening carefully, not expecting the other party to give them a modified version.
It's something we drill into kids in school, and often into adults too: read carefully. Because we're all prone to pattern-matching the general shape to something we've seen before and zoning out.
It seems to be more like a weighing machine based on past tokens encountered together, so this is exactly the kind of answer we'd expect on a trivial question (I had no confusion over this question, my only confusion was why it was so basic).
It is surprisingly good at deceiving people and looking like it is thinking, when it only performs one of the many processes we use to think - pattern matching.
The point of o1 is that it's good at reasoning because it's not purely operating in the "giving a snap answer on the fly" mode, unlike the previous models released by OpenAI.
You are now asking a modified question to a model that has seen the unmodified one millions of times. The model has an expectation of the answer, and the modified riddle uses that expectation to trick the model into seeing the question as something it isn't.
That's it. You can transform the problem into a slightly different variant and the model will trivially solve it.
So it doesn't take an understanding of gender roles, just grammar.
Humans fail at the original because they expect doctors to be male and miss crucial information because of that assumption. The model fails at the modification because it assumes that it is the unmodified riddle and misses crucial information because of that assumption.
In both cases, the trick is to subvert assumptions. To provoke the human or LLM into taking a reasoning shortcut that leads them astray.
You can construct arbitrary situations like this one, and the LLM will get it unless you deliberately try to confuse it by basing it on a well known variation with a different answer.
I mean, genuinely, do you believe that LLMs don't understand grammar? Have you ever interacted with one? Why not test that theory outside of adversarial examples that humans fall for as well?
There is no indication of the sex of the doctor, and families that consist of two mothers do actually exist and probably doesn't even count as that unusual.
I would certainly expect any person to have the same reaction.
> So, it started its chain of thought with "Interpreting the riddle" (smart!).
How is that smarter than intuitively arriving at the correct answer without having to explicitly list the intermediate step? Being able to reasonably accurately judge the complexity of a problem with minimal effort seems “smarter” to me.
> Whereas o1, at the very outset smelled out that it is a riddle
That doesn't seem very impressive since it's (an adaptation of) a famous riddle
The fact that it also gets it wrong after reasoning about it for a long time doesn't make it better of course
If you are tricked about the nature of the problem at the outset, then all reasoning does is drive you further in the wrong direction, making you solve the wrong problem.
And remember the LLM has already read a billion other things, and now needs to figure out - is this one of them tricky situations, or the straightforward ones? It also has to realize all the humans on forums and facebook answering the problem incorrectly are bad data.
Might seem simple to you, but it's not.
