I think that semantically this question is too similar to the car wash one. Changing subjects from car to elephant and car wash to creek does not change the fact that they are subjects. The embeddings will be similar in that dimension.
replyI understand. But isn't it a sign of "smarts" that one can generalize from analoguous tasks?
replySure it is, but it's a different set of smarts than the kind of gotcha logic puzzle trying to be tested with the car wash question.
replyMy gut says you’re right, but I don’t know if this is indeed true. It might be the same thing.
replyFrom Gemini pro:
replyYou should definitely ride the elephant (or at least lead it there)!
Here is the logic:
If you walk there by yourself, you will arrive at the creek, but the dirty elephant will still be 300 feet back where you started. You can't wash the elephant if it isn't with you!
Plus, it is much easier to take the elephant to the water than it is to carry enough buckets of water 300 feet back to the elephant.
Would you like another riddle, or perhaps some actual tips on how to keep cool in the Arizona heat?
i would say this is a lower difficulty. the car question primes it to think about stuff like energy and pollution.
replyOk, but the point of the logical question is about the connection. If you really think it's answering logically with reasoning, there should be zero priming.
replyI like telling it the car wash is 24,901.1 miles away (with the implication being that I'm right beside the car wash)
reply