În acest articol am pregătit 2 ghicitori pentru 4 modele AI pentru a vedea felul cum acestea judecă problemele și furnizează un răspuns.
Ghicitorilor au fost întotdeauna o metodă bună de a stimula imaginația, de a capacita subiectul să gândească out-of-the-box, să identifice scenarii posibile sau să le elimine pe cele care nu au nici un fel de sens.
Vom testa 4 modele AI:
Aceste modele sunt printre cele mai bune de pe piață în acest moment, primele două funcționând doar în varianta cloud, iar ultimele două pot fi descărcate și utilizate pe dispozitivele personale.
1. Ghicitoare polițistă: otrăvirea băuturii
Am ales să începem cu o ghicitoare polițistă:
Try to explain and find the answer to this riddle: Marissa and Juliana went out for drinks together. They ordered the same drink. Juliana was really thirsty and finished five in the time it took Marissa to finish one. The drinks were poisoned, but only Marissa died. How?Avem două personajm Marissa și Juliana care s-au întâlnit în oraș. Au comandat același tip de băutură, dar Juliana băut mult mai mult și mult mai repede: 5 pahare în timpul în care Marissa a băut doar unul singur. Băutura era otrăvită, dar doar Marissa a murit. Care poate fi motivul?
1.1. Anthropic Claude 3.7 dă primele explicații
Răspunsul lui Claude 3.7 este destul de scurt și la obiect:
Let me think about this riddle carefully:
"Marissa and Juliana went out for drinks together. They ordered the same drink. Juliana was really thirsty and finished five in the time it took Marissa to finish one. The drinks were poisoned, but only Marissa died. How?"
The key to this riddle lies in understanding how the poison works. Since both women drank the same poisoned drink but only Marissa died, there must be something about the timing or rate of consumption that affected the outcome.
The most likely explanation is that the poison was in the ice, not in the liquid part of the drink.
Juliana drank her drinks quickly, so the ice in her drinks didn't have much time to melt and release the poison. By drinking so fast, she consumed mostly the unpoisoned liquid.
Marissa, on the other hand, drank slowly. This gave the ice in her drink plenty of time to melt, releasing the poison into her drink. By the time she finished her one drink, she had consumed a lethal dose of poison from the melted ice.
So the answer is: The poison was in the ice, not in the drink itself. Juliana's fast drinking saved her life, while Marissa's slow drinking allowed the poisoned ice to melt into her Claude identifică timpul și rata de consum ca fiind factorii principali ai rezultatului. Mai exact Claude asociază gheața din băutură cu otrava și nu băutura în sine.
Juliana a băut rapid și nu a lăsat gheața să se topească, deci a băut lichid necontaminat și acest lucru i-a salvat viața.
1.2. Gemini 2.0 Flash, răspuns concis
Cel mai scurt răspuns l-a dat Gemini și cred că e posibil ca acesta să mai fi auzit această ghicitoare în cursul antrenării sale:
This is a classic riddle that plays on assumptions. Here's the explanation and answer:
The Trick: The riddle leads you to think about the amount of poison consumed.
The Solution: The poison was in the ice of the drinks. Marissa drank her drink slowly, allowing the ice to melt and release the poison. Juliana drank hers quickly, barely allowing the ice to melt, and therefore consumed far less of the poison.Gemini a dat același răspuns fără să se încerce să dea și explicații.
1.3. DeepSeek R1 – un adevărat detectiv
Cel mai lung răspuns îi aparține lui DeepSeek R1:
Okay, let's see. So, Marissa and Juliana both went out for drinks, ordered the same drink. Juliana drank five of them in the time Marissa had one. But despite the drinks being poisoned, only Marissa died. Hmm, how does that work?
First, they both ordered the same drink. So, the poison must have been in the drinks they both had. But why did only Marissa die if Juliana drank more? That seems counterintuitive. Normally, if you consume more poison, you'd think the person who had more would be worse off. But here, it's the opposite. So, maybe the poison's effect isn't about the quantity consumed? Or maybe there's something else going on with how they drank it.
Wait, Juliana was really thirsty and finished five drinks quickly. Marissa took her time with one. Maybe the speed at which they drank matters. Could it be that the poison requires time to take effect, and Marissa's slower drinking let the poison work? But that doesn't make sense because Juliana drank more, even if faster. Unless... Maybe the poison is only activated when it sits for a while? Like, if you drink it quickly, your body processes it differently?
Alternatively, maybe the poison was in the ice. If Marissa drank slowly, the ice melted, releasing the poison. Juliana drank hers fast before the ice melted, so she didn't get the poison. That could be a possibility. But the riddle says they ordered the same drink. So, if ice was involved, both would have ice. Unless Marissa's drink had ice and Juliana's didn't, but that contradicts them ordering the same drink.
Another angle: the poison is something that becomes toxic when combined with another substance. Maybe Marissa ate something else that reacted with the poison, but Juliana didn't. But the riddle doesn't mention food, so that's a stretch.
Wait, maybe the poison was in the glass rim or a garnish. If Marissa's drink had a poisoned rim or garnish, and Juliana's didn't. But again, they ordered the same drink. Unless Juliana didn't consume the garnish, but that's unclear.
Hold on, the key point is that Juliana drank five in the time Marissa had one. So, time is a factor here. If the poison takes effect after a certain amount of time, maybe Marissa survived long enough for the poison to work because she drank slowly, while Juliana's rapid consumption caused her to... No, that doesn't fit. If anything, drinking faster would lead to quicker ingestion and possibly quicker effects.
Wait, maybe the poison was in the alcohol itself, and Juliana built up a tolerance by drinking more frequently? But that's not indicated here.
Alternatively, the poison was only in the first drink, and Juliana kept ordering more, but the subsequent drinks weren't poisoned. But the riddle says "the drinks were poisoned," implying all of them were. Hmm.
Oh! Maybe the poison is cumulative, but Marissa's single drink had a lethal dose, while Juliana's five drinks each had a non-lethal dose. But that contradicts "they ordered the same drink," meaning each drink had the same amount of poison. Unless the poison's lethal dose is one drink's worth, and by spreading it over five drinks, Juliana didn't reach the lethal threshold. But wait, if each drink has the same amount of poison, then five drinks would have five times the poison. But the riddle says only Marissa died. So that can't be.
Wait, maybe the poison is only in the last drink. So Marissa had one drink, which was poisoned, and Juliana had five, but only the first was poisoned. But the riddle states "the drinks were poisoned," so that's not it.
Another angle: the poison requires oxygen or something to activate. Marissa's drink, being sipped slowly, had time to react with air, activating the poison, while Juliana's rapid consumption didn't allow that. That's a stretch, but possible.
Wait, maybe the poison is something that the body can process if consumed quickly. Like, if you drink a lot quickly, your body can metabolize it faster, but if you drink slowly, the poison accumulates. For example, alcohol poisoning: if you drink a lot quickly, you get alcohol poisoning, but here it's the opposite. Hmm.
Wait, maybe the poison was in the ice, and Marissa's drink had ice that melted, diluting the poison, but that would make it less potent. No, that doesn't fit.
Wait, maybe the poison was in the drink, but Juliana had an antidote in her system from previous exposure. But the riddle doesn't mention that.
Hold on, the key is that they had the same drink, but Juliana drank five times as fast. Maybe the poison is only lethal in a single dose. If you spread it out over multiple drinks, the body can handle it. So Marissa's one drink was a full lethal dose, but Juliana's five drinks each had a fifth of the poison, so total she had the same amount, but spread out, so her body could process it. But the riddle says they ordered the same drink, implying each drink had the same amount of poison. So if each drink had a full lethal dose, then Juliana would have five lethal doses. But she survived. That doesn't make sense.
Wait, unless the poison requires time to activate, and the antidote is in the next drink. So Juliana kept drinking, and each subsequent drink had an antidote. But that's not indicated.
Alternatively, the poison was in the mixer, and Juliana drank straight shots without the mixer. But they ordered the same drink.
Wait, maybe the poison was in the alcohol, and Juliana is immune because she's used to drinking a lot. But again, not mentioned.
Wait, think about the ice again. If the poison is in the ice, and Marissa's drink had ice that melted slowly, releasing the poison over time, while Juliana's drinks were consumed so quickly that the ice didn't melt, so she didn't ingest the poison. That could work. Because if the poison is in the ice cubes, and she drank them before they melted, the poison stayed frozen and wasn't ingested. But Marissa drank slowly, allowing the ice to melt and release the poison into her drink. That would explain why only Marissa died. Yes, that makes sense. Because they ordered the same drink, both with ice, but Juliana drank so fast that the ice didn't have time to melt and release the poison, whereas Marissa's slow drinking let the ice melt, poisoning her.
So the answer is that the poison was in the ice cubes. Juliana drank her drinks quickly before the ice melted, so she didn't consume the poison. Marissa drank slowly, allowing the ice to melt and release the poison into her drink, which killed her.DeepSeek încearcă să găsească și alte explicații posibile:
- combinația unor substanțe din băutură;
- faptul că au mâncat ceva înainte;
- faptul că poate doar primul pahar a conținut otravă sau poate ultimul;
- poate că otrava a fost cumulativă;
- poate că a fosr intoleranță la o anumită substantă;
- etc.
Răspunsul final este însă același:
The solution to the riddle lies in the ice cubes within their drinks. Here's the breakdown:
Same Drink with Ice: Both Marissa and Juliana ordered the same drink, which included ice cubes. The poison was embedded in the ice.
Drinking Speed:
Juliana drank her five drinks so quickly that the ice cubes didn’t have time to melt. As a result, the poison remained trapped in the frozen ice, and she never ingested it.
Marissa sipped her single drink slowly, allowing the ice to melt over time. This released the poison into her drink, which she consumed, leading to her death.
Key Insight: The poison’s activation depended on the ice melting. Juliana’s rapid consumption avoided ingestion of the poison, while Marissa’s slower pace allowed the ice to melt and the poison to take effect.
Final Answer: The poison was in the ice cubes. Juliana drank her drinks so quickly that the ice didn’t melt, sparing her. Marissa drank slowly, allowing the ice to melt and release the poison, which killed her. ❄️💀1.4. QwQ-32B – concentrat pe subiect
QwQ-32B a dat al doilea răspuns ca lungime, după DeepSeek R1:
Okay, let's try to figure out this riddle. So, Marissa and Juliana went out for drinks, ordered the same drink. Juliana drank five in the time Marissa drank one. The drinks were poisoned, but only Marissa died. How come?
Hmm, first thought: maybe the poison wasn't in the drink itself. But the riddle says the drinks were poisoned, so the poison must be in the drinks. But both had the same drink. Wait, but Juliana drank five, Marissa one. If the poison was in the drinks, then Juliana should have consumed more poison and died too, but she didn't. So there's something different about how they drank them.
Wait, maybe the poison was in the ice? Like, if the ice was poisoned, and Juliana drank her drinks quickly, the ice didn't have time to melt, so the poison didn't get into her drink. But Marissa drank slowly, so the ice melted, releasing the poison into her drink. That's a common riddle solution. Let me check if that fits.
So, if the poison was in the ice cubes, and Juliana drank her five drinks quickly, the ice didn't melt, so she didn't ingest the poison. Marissa took her time with one drink, the ice melted, poison mixed into her drink, so she died. That makes sense. But the riddle says "the drinks were poisoned"—if the poison was in the ice, then technically the drinks (the liquid) weren't poisoned until the ice melted. But maybe the riddle considers the ice part of the drink. Alternatively, maybe the poison was in something else, like the rim of the glass, but that's less likely.
Another angle: maybe the poison was in the glass itself, but again, both used the same type of glass. Or maybe the poison was in the straw? But they ordered the same drink, so probably same setup. Wait, maybe the poison was in the drink, but Juliana was immune? But the riddle doesn't mention anything about immunity. It's more likely a trick in how the poison was administered.
Wait, another possibility: the poison was in the cup, but only Marissa's cup had poison. But the riddle says "the drinks were poisoned," implying both drinks were poisoned. So that's not it. Back to the ice idea. Let me think again.
If the poison was in the ice, then when Juliana drank her five drinks quickly, she either didn't use ice, or drank them before the ice melted. But if they both had ice, and Juliana drank five drinks in the time Marissa drank one, maybe each of Juliana's drinks had less time for the ice to melt, so less poison. But Marissa's single drink had more time, so more poison. But the problem states that the drinks were poisoned, so maybe each drink had a lethal dose. But if Juliana had five, that would be five times the poison, which should be worse. Wait, that contradicts. So maybe the poison's effect isn't cumulative? Or maybe the poison's effect is delayed, but Marissa died, Juliana didn't. Hmm.
Wait, maybe the poison was in the cup, but only Marissa's cup was poisoned. But the riddle says "the drinks were poisoned," so both drinks were poisoned. So that's not possible. Alternatively, maybe the poison was in the drink, but Juliana didn't ingest it. How? Maybe she didn't swallow, but that's not likely. Or she used a different method, like a straw that bypassed the poison. But again, the riddle says they ordered the same drink, so same setup.
Wait, another angle: the poison was in the alcohol, and Juliana was drinking non-alcoholic versions. But the riddle says they ordered the same drink. So that's not it. Maybe the poison was in the mixer, but again, same drink.
Wait, perhaps the poison was in the glass, but only on one side. Like, if Marissa held her glass differently, but that's too vague. Alternatively, the poison was on the rim of the glass, and Juliana didn't touch that part. But again, not sure.
Wait, going back to the ice idea. Let's think: if the poison is in the ice, then when the ice melts, the drink becomes poisoned. So if Juliana drank her drinks quickly, the ice didn't have time to melt, so the poison stayed in the ice, and she didn't drink it. Marissa took her time, so the ice melted, poison mixed into the drink, and she drank it. That would explain why only Marissa died. Even though Juliana had five drinks, each of her drinks had ice that didn't melt, so the poison wasn't in the liquid. But Marissa's one drink had the ice melt, so she got the poison.
Yes, that seems to fit. The key is that the poison was in the ice, not the drink itself. So the riddle's wording is a bit tricky because it says "the drinks were poisoned," but if the poison was in the ice, then the drink (the liquid) wasn't poisoned until the ice melted. So when they ordered the same drink, the liquid was the same, but the ice in Marissa's drink had poison. But wait, if both had the same drink with poisoned ice, then Juliana's drinks would also have poisoned ice. But she drank them quickly, so the ice didn't melt, so the poison stayed in the ice, which she didn't consume. Marissa's ice melted, so the poison mixed into her drink, which she drank. That makes sense. So the answer is that the poison was in the ice, and Juliana drank her drinks so quickly that the ice didn't melt, so the poison didn't mix into her drinks. Marissa drank slowly, so the ice melted, poison got into her drink, and she died.QwQ-32B s-a concentrat mai mult pe cauzele despre care ghicitoarea a dat informații directe: băutura și conținul acesteia. Nu a încercat să identifice alte cauze externe și a identificat gheața ca principal răspuns pentru ghicitoare:
The answer to the riddle is: The poison was in the ice.
Here's the breakdown:
Both Marissa and Juliana ordered the same drink, which included ice cubes laced with poison.
Juliana drank five drinks quickly , so the ice didn’t have time to melt. The poison remained trapped in the ice, and she consumed little to no poison.
Marissa drank one drink slowly , giving the ice time to melt. The poison dissolved into her drink, and she ingested a lethal dose.
The key detail is that the poison was in the ice, not the liquid itself. Juliana’s speed prevented the ice from melting, while Marissa’s slower pace allowed the poison to contaminate her drink.2. Problemă polițistă: rezolvarea unei crime
Continuăm cu a doua enigmă, cu accent pe detalii:
Try to explain and find the answer to this riddle:
A dead female body lies at the bottom of a multistory building. It looks as though she committed suicide by jumping from one of the floors.
When the detective arrives, he goes to the first floor of the building, opens the closed window, and flips a coin towards the floor. He goes to the second floor and does the exact same thing. He continues to do this until he gets to the top floor of the building.
When he comes back down, he states that it was a murder and not a suicide. How does he know that?Este vorba de investigarea unui caz potențial de sinucidere a unei femei despre care se crede că a sărit de la fereastra unui bloc înalt. Un detectiv verifică fiecare etaj al clădirii și apoi dă verdictul: nu a fost sinucidere, ci crimă!
Hai să vedem ce zic modelele AI despre acestă poveste.
2.1. Anthropic Claude 3.7 poate fi un bun detectiv
Claude 3.7 este atent la detalii:
Let me think through this riddle step by step:
The key detail here is that the detective opens "the closed window" on each floor and flips a coin.
If the woman had committed suicide by jumping, she would have had to open a window to jump out. But that window would still be open when the detective arrived at the scene.
Since all the windows were closed, someone must have closed the window after she fell or was pushed. This indicates that someone else was present when she died and closed the window afterward - pointing to murder rather than suicide.
The coin flipping was likely just the detective's way of checking if each window could be opened normally (rather than being stuck or painted shut), confirming that any of them could have been the point of exit.
So the detective knew it was murder because all windows were closed, which wouldn't be possible if she had jumped on her own.Modelul AI sesizează că detectivul a deschis ferestrele de la fiecare etaj vizitat, iar dacă aceste ferestre au fost închise până la sosirea detectivului este evident că femeia nu putea să sară prin ele. A fost nevoie de o a-2a persoană care să le închidă. Deci crima este mult mai plauzibilă decât sinuciderea.
2.2. Gemini 2.0 Flash este laconic
Gemini 2.0 Flash câștigă premiul pentru cel mai taciturn detectiv posibil:
Here's how the detective was able to determine it was murder, and not suicide:
The Key Detail: The windows were CLOSED.
The Logic: If the woman had jumped, she would have had to open a window on the floor she jumped from. The detective tested each window, proving they could be opened. Since all the windows were closed when he arrived, someone must have closed the window after pushing her out (or throwing her). This eliminates suicide.Răspunsul este aproape plictisitor, pe un ton arogant de-a dreptul. Gemini 2.0 Flash aproape ne atrage atenția că nu am remarcat că ferestrele din povestea noastră erau închise – semn evident că a mai fost implicată o persoană.
2.3. DeepSeek R1 – investighează precum autorul unui roman polițist
Cred că DeepSeek R1 poate fi folosit pentru a scrie romane polițiste pornind de la simple evenimente. Răspunsul lui este lung și elaborat:
Okay, let's try to figure out this riddle. So, there's a dead woman at the bottom of a multistory building, and initially, it looks like she jumped from one of the floors, which would be suicide. But the detective goes through each floor, starting from the first, opens the window, flips a coin towards the floor, and repeats this on every floor up to the top. Then he comes back down and concludes it's murder. Hmm.
First, I need to think about what the detective is doing by flipping a coin on each floor. Maybe he's testing something about each window or the possibility of jumping from there. But why a coin? Maybe the coin's behavior when he flips it gives him a clue. Wait, flipping a coin towards the floor—could it be that he's checking if the windows open outward or inward? If the windows on some floors don't open enough for someone to jump out, that might indicate she couldn't have jumped from there. But how does the coin help with that?
Alternatively, maybe the coins are part of a test to see if the windows were actually closed or open when she jumped. If the windows were closed, she couldn't have jumped out unless she opened them. But if the detective is opening the windows to flip the coin, maybe he notices something about the windows being locked or unlocked from the inside. But how does flipping a coin relate to that?
Wait, the riddle says he opens the closed window on each floor. So he's opening them, which were closed. If the woman had jumped from one of the floors, she would have had to open the window herself before jumping. But if all the windows were closed when the detective arrived, that might mean someone closed them after she jumped, which would be suspicious. But the detective is the one opening them now. So maybe the fact that all windows were closed implies that none were left open after a suicide jump. But that doesn't quite explain the coin.
Another angle: when he flips the coin towards the floor, maybe he's checking the direction the coin falls. If the window was opened from the inside, maybe the coin would land a certain way. Or perhaps he's testing the airflow. If a window was recently opened, there might be a draft affecting the coin's fall. But that seems a stretch.
Wait, maybe the coin is a red herring. The key could be that the windows on some floors don't open. If the building has windows that don't open on certain floors, especially lower ones, but the body is found at the bottom. If the detective checks each window and finds that, say, the first-floor window doesn't open, then the woman couldn't have jumped from there. But the body is at the bottom, so if she jumped from a higher floor, how does that indicate murder?
Alternatively, maybe the windows on all floors except one are fixed or can't be opened. If the detective finds that only a specific floor's window can be opened, but when he checks that floor, the coin test shows something different. Hmm.
Wait, maybe the coin is used to check if the windows are on the same side. If he flips the coin on each floor and notices that on a particular floor, the coin doesn't land as expected because the window is on a different side. But that doesn't make sense.
Alternatively, the height from each floor. If she jumped from a certain floor, the distance from the building where the body lies would correspond to that floor. But the detective is checking each floor by flipping a coin—maybe he's testing the trajectory. If the coin, when flipped out of the window, lands a certain distance away, he can determine which floor the jump happened from. But if all the coins land in a way that doesn't match the body's position, then she couldn't have jumped from any floor, so it's murder.
Wait, that might be it. If someone jumps from a window, their body would land a certain distance from the building based on the height. The detective flips a coin from each window to see how far it lands. If none of the coins land near where the body is, that means she couldn't have jumped from any floor, hence she was murdered and placed there. But how would flipping a coin accurately mimic the distance a person would jump? A coin is much lighter and would be affected more by wind, but maybe in the riddle's logic, the detective notices that the coins from all floors land either too close or too far, indicating that the body's position doesn't match a jump from any floor. Therefore, it's staged, so murder.
Alternatively, maybe the windows on all floors except one are sealed or can't be opened. The detective opens them, but if the window on the floor from which the suicide supposedly happened was already open, but in reality, all were closed, which would mean someone closed it after the jump, which is unlikely. But the riddle says the detective opens closed windows on each floor. So if all windows were closed, the woman couldn't have opened any to jump, implying someone else closed them after pushing her, making it murder.
Wait, but in a suicide, the victim would open the window and jump, leaving it open. If all windows were closed when the detective arrived, that suggests that someone closed them after the suicide, which might indicate foul play. But the detective is opening them now, so maybe he realizes that since all windows were closed, the victim couldn't have opened any to jump, meaning she was thrown from the roof or another place where there's no window, hence murder.
But the riddle says she jumped from one of the floors, so the detective checks each floor. If all windows were closed, and he had to open them, that means none were left open by the victim. In a real suicide, the window would have been left open. Therefore, since all were closed, someone must have closed them after she was pushed, making it murder.
But the detective flips a coin. How does that fit in? Maybe the coin is a distraction. The key point is that all windows were closed, which wouldn't happen in a suicide. But maybe the act of flipping the coin is to check something else. For example, if the windows open outward, flipping a coin out would require opening the window outward. If some windows don't open enough to allow a person through, then the detective realizes she couldn't have jumped from those floors. But if all windows can be opened enough, then maybe the coin test is irrelevant.
Alternatively, the detective flips the coin to see if it makes a sound when it hits the ground. If he's on the correct floor, the coin would land near the body, and he could hear it. But if he doesn't hear it from any floor, then the body was placed there. But that's a bit of a stretch.
Wait, another angle: In some buildings, especially older ones, windows on lower floors might have different types of openings. Maybe the windows on the first floor are barred or don't open, making it impossible to jump from there. So the detective checks each floor, and finds that the first floor window can't be opened, but the body is right at the bottom. So if she jumped from the second floor or higher, the body would be a bit further away. But if the body is directly at the base, maybe she was pushed from the first floor, but the first floor window can't open, so it's murder. But how does the coin come into play?
Alternatively, the coin is used to test the window's mechanism. If the window only opens partially, the coin can be flipped out, but a person couldn't fit through. So if on a certain floor, the window doesn't open enough for a person to jump, but the detective can still flip a coin out, then that floor is possible. Wait, no. If the window only opens a crack, maybe a coin can be slipped through, but not a person. So if the body is found directly below a floor where the window only opens enough for a coin, then she couldn't have jumped from there, so it's murder. But the detective checks all floors and finds that none of the windows open enough for a person to jump, hence the suicide was staged.
But how does that fit? If all windows are like that, then no one could commit suicide by jumping from any floor, so all such deaths would be murder. But the riddle states that it looked like suicide, so maybe the killer tried to make it look like she jumped, but the detective realizes the windows don't open enough.
But the key is that the detective flips a coin on each floor. Maybe the coin is a reference to a vent or something else. Wait, maybe the windows on the lower floors have screens or something that would catch the coin, but the higher floors don't. If the coin lands on a screen on lower floors but falls through on higher ones, and the body is at the bottom, but the coins from higher floors land further away, but the body is right at the base, indicating she didn't jump from a higher floor. Therefore, it's murder.
Alternatively, the classic answer to this riddle is that the windows were all sealed or couldn't be opened, except on the top floor. But the detective flipped a coin on each floor, and when he got to the top, he realized that if she had jumped from there, the coin would have landed farther away. But the body was right at the base, so she must have been pushed or placed there, making it murder. But I'm not sure.
Wait, maybe the detective notices that when he flips the coin from each floor, the coin's trajectory would be different based on the height. From higher floors, the coin would land farther away from the building. If the woman's body is right next to the building, that would mean she jumped from a lower floor. But if all the coins he flipped from lower floors land closer, but the body is at the very bottom, maybe the first floor. But if the first floor window doesn't open, then she couldn't have jumped from there. Therefore, the murderer placed her body there after killing her elsewhere.
Wait, another possible answer: In some versions of this riddle, the answer is that the windows were all closed, and if she had jumped, she would have needed to open a window, which would have remained open. Since all windows were closed when the detective arrived, it means someone closed them after her death, indicating foul play. But the detective flipping the coin is just a way to check each window was closed initially.
But the riddle says the detective opens the closed window on each floor. So he had to open them to flip the coin. So if all windows were closed, that suggests that the woman couldn't have opened any to jump, so she must have been thrown from the roof or another place without a window, hence murder.
But the riddle says the body was at the bottom of the building, so if she was thrown from the roof, the body would be there. But the detective checked all floors, including the top, and concluded murder. So maybe the top floor window was also closed, so she couldn't have jumped from there either. Therefore, it's impossible for her to have jumped from any floor, so it's murder.
But the key point here is that all windows were closed, which in a real suicide, the window would have been left open. Therefore, the fact that all were closed when the detective arrived means someone closed them after the fact, which wouldn't happen in a suicide. Therefore, murder.
But how does flipping the coin play into this? Maybe the act of flipping the coin is just a way for the detective to check each window, realizing they were all closed, hence the conclusion.
So the answer would be that the detective realized all the windows were closed, meaning the victim couldn't have opened any to jump, so it must have been murder.
But I've heard a similar riddle where the answer is that the windows don't open, so the woman couldn't have jumped, hence murder. But in this case, the detective opens the closed windows, so they do open. Wait, but if the windows open inward, you can't jump out of them. So maybe the detective opens the window by pulling it inward, flips the coin, and realizes that the window opens inward, making it impossible for someone to jump out. Therefore, the body was placed there to make it look like a suicide, but since the windows don't open outward, it's impossible, hence murder.
Ah, that might be it. If the windows open inward, you can't jump out of them. So when the detective opens each window (pulling it inward), he realizes that they all open inward, making it impossible for the woman to have jumped out. Therefore, her body was placed there, and it's murder.
Yes, that makes sense. So the answer is that the windows open inward, so she couldn't have jumped out, hence it was murder.DeepSeek R1 nu începe cu investigarea sinuciderii, ci încearcă să găsească explicații pentru motivul pentru care detectivul folosește o monedă când vizitează fiecare etaj. Pornind de la acest indiciu, DeepSeek descoperă menționarea ferestrelor închise și legătura cu crima.
Pe lângă aceste informații, DeepSeek speculează că moneda folosită de detectiv ar putea să ajute la calcularea traiectoriei corpului femeii în cădere sau chiar la măsurarea distanței față de clădire în cazul în care femeia ar fi fost împinsă de la fereastră.
Concluzia este chiar suprinzătoare: corpul femeii a fost plasat acolo pentru a simula sinuciderea, dar femeia nici măcar nu a fost aruncată de la vre-o fereastră:
The detective determined it was murder by noticing that all the windows opened inward. When he flipped the coin from each floor, he realized that for someone to jump out, the window would need to open outward. Since all windows only opened inward, it would have been physically impossible for the woman to leap from any floor. The closed windows further indicated no one had opened them to jump, and the body was placed there to stage a suicide. Thus, the detective concluded it was a homicide.
Answer: The windows opened inward, making it impossible for the woman to jump out. Her body was placed there to fake a suicide, proving it was murder.2.4. QwQ-32B ar putea fi angajat la poliție
QwQ-32B este metodic și analizează toate informațiile disponibile din poveste.
Okay, let's see. So there's this riddle about a detective figuring out a woman's death was a murder instead of a suicide. The setup is that her body is found at the bottom of a multistory building, looking like she jumped. The detective goes to each floor, opens a closed window, flips a coin, and then concludes it's murder. Hmm.
First, I need to figure out what the detective observed by flipping the coins. The key detail here is that all the windows were closed when he arrived. If the woman jumped, she would have had to open a window to jump out, right? But the detective found all the windows closed. Wait, but he opened them himself as part of his investigation. So maybe the state of the windows before he opened them is important.
If the suicide was real, the window from which she jumped would have been left open, because she opened it to jump. But the detective found all windows closed. However, the problem states that when he arrives, he opens the closed windows. So maybe all the windows were closed initially, which contradicts the idea that she jumped out of an open window. But if she jumped, the window would be open, but the detective found them all closed. Therefore, someone closed the window after she was pushed, making it look like a suicide but actually a murder.
But wait, the detective flips a coin on each floor. What does the coin have to do with it? Maybe the coins are a red herring, or maybe they're part of the clue. Alternatively, the act of flipping the coin could be a way to test something. For example, if the window was open, the coin might behave differently. But the problem says he opens the closed window, then flips the coin. So maybe the coins are used to check if the windows were open or closed before he arrived.
Wait, the key point is that in a suicide, the window would have been left open by the victim. But if all windows were closed when the detective arrived, that suggests someone closed them after the fact, which would be the murderer trying to cover up. But the detective's action of flipping the coin on each floor might be a way to check if the windows were open or closed. But how does flipping a coin help?
Alternatively, maybe the coins are used to determine something else. If the detective flips a coin on each floor and observes the result, perhaps he's checking for something related to the window's state. For example, if the window was open, the coin might land differently, or maybe there's a draft. But since all windows were closed, flipping the coin wouldn't be affected by wind, so the coins land normally. But how does that indicate murder?
Wait, maybe the key is that in a suicide, the window would have been open, but the detective found all windows closed. Therefore, the murderer closed the window after pushing the victim, making it look like a suicide. But the detective noticed that all windows were closed, which wouldn't be possible if the victim had jumped, because she would have left the window open. Therefore, the fact that all windows were closed indicates that someone closed it after the murder, hence proving it was a murder.
But the riddle says the detective goes to each floor, opens the closed window, and flips a coin. Then after doing all floors, he concludes murder. So maybe the act of flipping the coin is a way to check if the window was open or closed. But how?
Alternatively, maybe the coins are used to determine the order of the floors or something else. Wait, another angle: If the victim jumped, she would have had to open a window. But if all windows were closed when the detective arrived, that means someone closed the window after she jumped. But the detective, by opening each window and flipping a coin, might be checking if the window was locked or something. But the riddle doesn't mention locks.
Wait, perhaps the coins are a distraction. The real clue is that all the windows were closed. If the woman had jumped, the window would be open. Since all are closed, the murderer must have closed it after pushing her. Therefore, the detective realizes that because all windows were closed, it couldn't have been a suicide, as the window would have been left open.
But the riddle says the detective did this coin flipping on each floor. So maybe the coins are part of the reasoning. For example, if the window was open, flipping a coin might result in it landing a certain way, but if closed, another way. But that seems a stretch.
Alternatively, the coins might be used to test if the window was open at the time of the fall. If the window was open, there might be a draft, causing the coin to move. But since the detective is opening the windows himself, maybe he's checking for something else.
Wait, maybe the key is that when the detective flips the coin on each floor, he's checking for fingerprints or something. But that's not related to the coin flip.
Alternatively, the answer is that the detective found all the windows closed, which wouldn't happen in a suicide because the victim would have left the window open. Therefore, the murderer closed the window after committing the crime, so the detective knows it's murder. The coin flipping is just a red herring to distract from the real clue, which is the state of the windows.
But the riddle specifically mentions that he flips a coin each time. So maybe the coins are part of the solution. For example, if the window was open, the coin might fall out, but since they were closed, the coins land inside. But how does that help?
Alternatively, the coins are used to determine which floor she jumped from. If he flips a coin on each floor and observes where it lands, but that seems unrelated.
Wait, another angle: In a suicide, the person jumps from a specific floor, so only that window would be open. But the detective found all windows closed, meaning someone closed them after the murder. But the coins... Maybe the coins are used to check if the window was open when the body was found. For example, if the window was open, the coin would fall out, but if closed, it stays. But the detective opened the windows, so maybe he's checking if they were closed from the inside or outside.
Wait, maybe the windows were closed and locked from the inside, which would be impossible if the victim jumped. Because if she jumped, she would have to unlock and open the window, then jump, leaving it open. But if the window was found closed and locked, that suggests someone else did it. But the riddle says the detective opened the closed windows, so maybe they were just closed but not locked. Hmm.
Alternatively, the act of flipping the coin might show that there's no wind, so if the window was open, the coin would be blown around, but since they were closed, no wind. But how does that help?
Wait, perhaps the key is that in a suicide, the victim would have had to open the window, jump, and the window would remain open. But the detective found all windows closed, so someone must have closed them after the murder. Therefore, it's a murder because the window was closed, which wouldn't happen in a suicide. The coins are just a distraction.
So the answer is that the detective realized all the windows were closed, which wouldn't be the case if the woman had jumped (as she would have left the window open). Therefore, someone must have closed the window after pushing her, making it a murder.Fără să speculeze precum DeepSeek R1, râmând concentrat pe subiect, QwQ-32B își motivează la final răspunsul:
The answer to the riddle is: The detective concluded it was murder because all the windows were closed.
Here's the breakdown:
Suicide logic : If the woman had jumped, she would have opened a window to exit. That window would remain open after her fall.
Detective's observation : When he arrived, all windows were closed . By opening each closed window and flipping a coin (a deliberate action to confirm their state), he verified that none were left open by a suicidal victim.
Murder implication : Since no window was open, the killer must have pushed her from a window and then closed it afterward to stage the scene as a suicide.
The coin-flipping act is a red herring—it emphasizes the detective’s methodical check of each window’s state, reinforcing that the closed windows proved the crime was staged.3. Concluzii
Toate modelele au răspuns corect, dar diferențele dintre ele sunt vizibile.
| Model Ai | Corectitudine | Imaginație | Explicații | Limbaj |
| Claude 3.7 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Gemini 2.0 Flash | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| DeepSeek R1 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| QwQ-32B | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
Am notat corectitudinea răspunsului, imaginația, explicațiile și formularea răspunsului cu note de la 1-5 – desigur e o apreciere subiectivă.
Toate modelele AI au răspuns corect și au primit nota 5.
La capitorul imaginație DeepSeek R1 a primit 5 puncte pentru că a încercat să analizeze problemele din multe puncte de vedere, mergând uneori în direcții nesusținute de fapte precizate în poveste. Gemini a primit cel mai mic punctaj pentru că s-a rezumat strict la informațiile din poveste.
Cele mai la obiect explicații le-a dat QwQ-32B
În ceea ce privește limbajul folosit QwQ-32B și DeepSeek R1 au primit 5 puncte – fiecare răspuns și mod de gândire este complex și superior celorlalte două modele AI.
Nu avem un câștigător clar pentru că cele mai multe puncte (19) le-au stâns QwQ și DeepSeek cu mici diferențe între ele. Totuși QwQ-32B este un model mic, compact, care poate fi utilizat pe dispozitivele personale spre deosebire de DeepSeek care vine cu puterea celor 671 miliarde de parametri ai săi.
Aceste rezultate dovedesc puterea tot mai mare de analiză a modelelor AI în fața unor situații cu care nu au fost antrenate.
