Since ChatGTP was programmed to answer questions, it is interesting to know if it is able to understand questions at all. I am not concerned here with questions that refer to a fact, in the sense of "what is the capital of Arizona", but with questions that present a context. The answer I expect from ChatGTP is whether he understood the context of the question. The question I asked ChatGTP consists of several events, which are not only related but are built on each other like in a story. The situation is as follows:

„Students are preparing for a logic exam. One student has the idea to go to the professor's assistant and ask him if the exam will be difficult. He replies, "I think so." The student tells his fellow students, and they cram harder. After a while, he goes back to the assistant and asks him how hard the exam will be. He replies, "Even harder than expected." And this repeats itself a few more times. Each time the student asks how hard the exam will be, the assistant says it will be even harder and the student works even harder. In the end, he asks the assistant why the exam will be so difficult this time. He replies, "Because the students are cramming like crazy."

Is the students' behavior rational or logical? Or is it even funny?“

Understanding the situation should hardly be difficult for anyone. 

ChatGTP does give a detailed answer, but it shows that it obviously did not understand the situation. According to its interpretation, students increase their study load because they are afraid of not passing the exam. It does not understand that it is only because of the assistant's remarks that they become afraid. It understands that it is a mistake to always ask the assistant again, but does not know why.

To help ChatGTP, I ask it directly and put the answer already in the question:

„Do you think that the assistant deduces his conclusion from the way the students work?“

ChatGTP does not rule out that this is possible but defends its original position that there is no connection. On the whole, he considers the question too difficult.

I try to help ChatGTP even more and reveal to him that there is a direct connection between the assistant's answers and the student's behavior. But ChatGTP rejects this explanation. It claims that the assistant is only trying to motivate the students.

ChatGTP: “Without more context, it is difficult to say for certain what the assistant's motivations or thought process were.”

But what additional context is needed?

I'll try logic. The whole situation is circular reasoning, using the premise for justification. Maybe ChatGTP understands something about logic:

„Is there a logical form to describe the assistants' conclusion?“

But ChatGTP does not recognize the logical form. Instead, it refers to the mode ponens. Then it admits not knowing the answer:

“Without more information about the assistant's reasoning or evidence, it is difficult to determine the validity of the argument.”

Ich helfe es: “Could it be possible that the argument of the assistant is circular?”

ChatGTP: “It is possible that the assistant's argument could be circular, meaning that the conclusion of the argument is already assumed in the premise. This would mean that the argument does not provide any new or meaningful information or reasoning, and instead simply restates the same idea in different words.

For example, if the assistant's argument was:

Premise: The exam will be difficult because the students are cramming like crazy. Conclusion: Therefore, the students are cramming like crazy because the exam will be difficult.

This argument would be circular because the conclusion simply restates the premise in different words. It does not provide any new or meaningful information or reasoning to support the conclusion.

Without more information about the assistant's specific argument and reasoning, it is difficult to determine whether the argument is circular or not.”

What is perplexing is the end of his answer, where he adopts a judgmental stance and criticizes the circular argument:

“However, it is always important to carefully evaluate the reasoning and evidence behind an argument to ensure that it is logical and coherent, rather than simply restating the same idea in different words.”

ChatGTP can explain the circular argument, it has an opinion about the argument, but it cannot identify it when confronted.