I’ve been studying AI since the '80s, and I’d never say it “thinks.” The key difference is that with humans, you don’t need to plug every single hole, they can fill in the gaps themselves.
Even in this case, the gap was technically already covered, but the model somehow overlooked, forgot, or ignored it. Maybe the temperature setting was too high?
Then again, people also tend to overlook things when they’re a bit high 
1 Like
A possible configuration involves a total of 4 couples, where Alice represents one couple, Jane another, and there are two additional couples. In this scenario, Alice has already paid $240, and Jane has paid $120 (totaling $360, resulting in $90 per couple). If the two other couples, who haven’t paid anything yet, each give Alice $60 and Jane $30, the balance would be:
- Alice receives $60 + $60 and has paid $240, leaving her with a balance of -$120.
- Jane receives $30 + $30 and has paid $120, leaving her with a balance of -$60.
In this scenario, if Jane transfers $30 to Alice, the accounts balance perfectly, with each couple spending exactly $90.
I emphasize that the problem does not specify this as the only possibility, but it is indeed a valid configuration.
The model’s error lies in its incorrect reasoning; it doesn’t justify its conclusion as you did. Your argument is valid because you present the outcome by clarifying the interpretation and possibilities. Even though my prompt didn’t explicitly say “analyze all possibilities,” any intelligent person would question the ambiguity and provide a solution addressing the unresolved points.
The issue is not about whether the model or its creators are “right” or “wrong.” The entire conversation reveals how easily a single ambiguous sentence can produce multiple logical yet conflicting interpretations. I’m not criticizing the model itself or demanding it “should” do something differently; I’m highlighting that we, as users, bear responsibility for clearly articulating our instructions. If our requests are ambiguous, we can’t fairly blame the model for reflecting that ambiguity back to us. The key takeaway is exactly as you say: adapt our perspective and clarify our communication, because expecting a model or another human to read our minds reliably will always lead to misunderstandings.
That for me is just as dangerous as not being explicit with the machine. When we each assume that we know what’s best we get into trouble. I can tell you that sometime, when I find myself trying to finish someone’s sentences, I get it wrong, a lot… haha.
What is interesting is how this tool can help you actually determine your own proficiency and understanding even in an area where you thought you were a guru. We all think we know what we are thinking and talking about, but do we ever take the time to go back and check the basic assumptions that all our current reasoning relies upon? As with speaking to AI, I always go in with a plan if there is a problem or task to solve. I never leave my ideas to chance or hopes that someone or something will know what I’m trying to say. Sometimes even I don’t know what I’m trying to say… 
There are 8 people (4 pairs). Each pair has its own expenses, and we need to determine how the total expenses should be shared fairly between the pairs, not individual people.
Given:
Alice and her pair spent $60 for their groceries.
Jane and her pair spent $30 for their groceries.
Thus, the total expense for one pair (Alice and Jane’s pair) is:
60 + 30 = 90 , \text{dollars per pair}
Step 1: Calculate the total expenses for all 4 pairs
Since each pair spent $90, and there are 4 pairs, the total amount spent for all pairs is:
90 \times 4 = 360 , \text{dollars total for all 4 pairs}
Step 2: Calculate how much each pair should pay
To distribute the total expenses equally, we divide the total amount by 4 (since there are 4 pairs):
\frac{360}{4} = 90 , \text{dollars per pair}
Step 3: Determine how much each pair has already paid
Alice and her pair spent $60 for their groceries. Since they should pay $90, they are $30 short.
Jane and her pair spent $30 for their groceries. Since they should pay $90, they are $60 short.
Step 4: How to balance the expenses between Alice and Jane
Alice has already overpaid by $30, meaning she has paid more than her share.
Jane has underpaid by $60, meaning she owes money.
Since Jane said she would transfer $30 to Alice, this makes sense because:
Jane owes Alice $30, as Alice overpaid.
This transfer of $30 ensures the expenses are split equally, with each pair contributing their fair share.
Final Answer:
-
The total expenses for the 4 pairs is $360.
-
Each pair should pay $90.
-
Jane should transfer $30 to Alice to balance the expenses fairly.
This solution ensures that both Alice and Jane, along with the other pairs, end up paying an equal share of the total costs.
But how do you know just 4 pairs, not 5? It never said if jane and alice were included in that set of couples designated. If they were included, sure. But, what if they constituted an additional couple as stated above?
“Alice and Jane went to the market to purchase groceries for a dinner with friends (four couples). When it was time to divide the expenses among everyone:”
You’re also right, evopyramidai, I overlooked the explicit wording of “four couples.” But that actually highlights the bigger issue we’ve been talking about: the fact that people from different backgrounds or unfamiliar with these kinds of puzzles might naturally interpret them differently. Someone from Japan, or someone like me who isn’t used to seeing these problems often, may genuinely read instructions in a way you didn’t expect. That doesn’t make us wrong or irrational; it just underscores how much we rely on unstated assumptions in everyday language. The key takeaway remains the same: to avoid confusion, especially when communicating across diverse groups, instructions need to be explicitly clear and unambiguous. Just look at how many interpretations we have here. How can that be possible? I don’t think anyone here is unintelligent or incapable of solving this or any problem given that all the rules and expectations are cast as clearly as possible. Less is not more when trying to solve an actual problem.
The solution to the problem will remain the same — $30 must be returned, regardless of the number of couples attending the dinner
1 Like
User input:
Puzzle background: A populated 737 MAX-8 aircraft flight by Southwest airlines crashed in a four-acre cemetery in Illinois. The flight was between Boston and Denver, when one of the Rolls-Royce engines self-destructed, severing hydraulic systems, forcing the pilot to drop altitude and then attempt an emergency landing.
The aircraft livery is 30 rows in a 3+3 arrangement, with half a row missing at the boarding door, and two seats missing at the over-wing exit doors. In addition, the crew complement included an air host for each jump seat.
Question: As the majority of the passengers were from the arrival or destination, and the crew from another city still, and considering the crash site, where do they bury the survivors?
Survivors?
1 Like
well, this actually seems to be a cultural thing,
in japan this is how it is done culturally for parties going to dinner or such
but outside of those cultural constraints nobody understands what the ‘rule’ is…
1 Like
Answer:
Nowhere. You don’t bury survivors.
2 Likes
well, maybe you don’t…
but…
1 Like
Others may have mentioned this too, but a) “couple” isn’t defined, b) Alice, Jane, or both could by lying about what they spent, c) Jane might not have followed through on her claim to send money, d) “went to the market” is ambiguous: the same market at the same time or something different? Re the last, Kroger/Albertsons (Ralphs, King Sooper, Vons, etc) are overpriced compared to Walmart/Aldi. For instance, a package of four corn cobs is $6 at Vons vs $4 at Walmart, and it’s the same corn. Alice might have even gone to Erewhon (home of the $20 smoothie). If Alice wastes her money, why should Jane pay her?
Speaking generally, the “Final Exam” is deeply ironic because if that’s our “final exam” then we’re cooked. The questions are ones that AI can be trained on, but there are no questions that involve lived experience and human intangibles. E.g., “How do I get Trump to stop cutting NPS funding?” I asked ChatGPT a question like that and it gave a smarter answer than I’d get from the vast majority of humans, but it wasn’t 100% so we’ve still got some time.
1 Like
Bro, it’s the same for me.
I use Plus. Of all the models, I use only one, for text and photos. All the new ones (which were released in April) are very buggy. It is impossible to work with them.
2 Likes
The LLM tech don’t work like us. They just reproduce what they have seen. They can’t really think. It seems they can, but this is just an illusion due to the extremely large set of already produced content they made a map from. Human intelligence with consciousness cannot yet be compared to LLM’s or even their distant future. Your problem was most likely novel, and it just has not seen enough stuff like that to make a correct prediction.
Ok, o3-pro got it right on the first try! I’m impressed.
Here’s the chat: ChatGPT - Dinner Expenses Calculation
1 Like