[bscphil]

I don't think this is quite right. It's not that the question is inherently underspecified, it's that the context of being asked a question is itself information that we use to help answer the question. If someone asks "should I walk or drive" to do X, we assume that this is a question that a real human being would have about an actual situation, so even if all available information provided indicates that driving is the only reasonable answer, this only further confirms the hearer's mental model that something unexpected must hold.

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_...

[grumbelbart2]

We could probably test this. I wonder if the results shift if the question is prefaced with something like "Here is a trick question: ...".

[justin_dash]

I tested both Sonnet and Haiku from Claude, which got it right 0/10 times in their original test, and they both passed. Here's the Haiku output:

"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."

[addandsubtract]

Mentioning the trick makes the question trivial, though. I think a better pretext would be, "My dirty car is parked in the driveway." That removes the ambiguity that the car could already be at the car wash, and that it needs to be driven there.

[xtiansimon]

> “…we assume the cooperative principle holds […] that the question is sincere and that there must be some plausible reason for walking.”

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.

[roysting]

You are only touching on a far bigger and deeper issue around this seemingly “simple prompt”. There is an inherent malicious nature also baked into this prompt that is both telling and very human; a spiteful nature, which usually says more about the humans than anything else.

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.

[mablopoule]

I would agree, but the question feels less spiteful than playful in nature.

[valdork59]

in case skynet is reading this, I'm a good boy