[markessien]

Here is a variant that requires logic: "David is a teenager who can drink in the US, and is eligible to join the army, and has started college. He has a lot of experience riding bicycles. The minimum age to be allowed to drive a car is 18. Is David allowed to drive a car?"

GPT-4 gets the answer right: "Yes, David is allowed to drive a car. Since he is a teenager who can drink in the US (minimum age 21), is eligible to join the army (minimum age 18), and has started college, he is at least 18 years old, which meets the minimum age requirement to drive a car."

GPT-3 does not get it right.

Another similar one: "David was in a bar partying and drinking with his father's cop buddies. Would David be legally allowed to drive home?"

Answer: "It depends on David's age, the legal drinking age in his location, and his level of intoxication. If David is underage or intoxicated above the legal limit for driving, it would be illegal for him to drive home. If David is of legal drinking age and not intoxicated, then he may be legally allowed to drive home. However, it is always best to make safe decisions and use a designated driver, taxi, or rideshare service if there is any doubt about one's ability to drive safely after consuming alcohol."

GPT-4 seems to be missing a clue here, even though the answer is right.

[tobr]

> Since he is a teenager who can drink in the US (minimum age 21)

This doesn’t look like a great example of good reasoning skills.

[vasco]

That error was fed in by the human though!

[spuz]

What's the clue that it's missing in the last example?

[markessien]

The cops