Skimming through conclusions and results, the authors conclude that LLMs exhibit failures across many axes we'd find to be demonstrative of AGI. Moral reasoning, simple things like counting that a toddler can do, etc. They're just not human and you can reasonably hypothesize most of these failures stem from their nature as next-token predictors that happen to usually do what you want.

So. If you've got OpenClaw running and thinking you've got Jarvis from Iron Man, this is probably a good read to ground yourself.

Note there's a GitHub repo compiling these failures from the authors: https://github.com/Peiyang-Song/Awesome-LLM-Reasoning-Failur...

An LLM is more akin to interacting with a quirky human that has anterograde amnesia because it can't form long-term memories anymore, it can only follow you in a long-ish conversation.

I'm not arguing that LLMs are human here, just that your reasoning doesn't make sense.

They're sold as AGI by the cloud providers and the whole stock market scam will collapse if normies are allowed to peek behind the curtain.

Which LLMs? There's tons of them and more powerful ones appear every month.

Specifically, the idea that LLMs fail to solve some tasks correctly due to fundamental limitations where humans also fail periodically well may be an instance of the fundamental attribution error.

LOL. Finally the Techbro-CEOs succeeded in creating an AI in their own image.

I don't see any solution longer term other than more personalized models.

Which models? The last ones came out this week.

>Basic Arithmetic. Another fundamental failure is that LLMs quickly fail in arithmetic as operands increase (Yuan et al., 2023; Testolin, 2024), especially in multiplication. Research shows models rely on superficial pattern-matching rather than arithmetic algorithms, thus struggling notably in middle-digits (Deng et al., 2024). Surprisingly, LLMs fail at simpler tasks (determining the last digit) but succeed in harder ones (first digit identification) (Gambardella et al., 2024). Those fundamental inconsistencies lead to failures for practical tasks like temporal reasoning (Su et al., 2024).

This is very misleading and I think flat out wrong. What's the best way to falsify this claim?

Edit: I tried falsifying it.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6999b72a-3a18-800b-856a-0d5da45b94...

https://chatgpt.com/share/6999b755-62f4-800b-912e-d015f9afc8...

I provided really hard 20 digit multiplications without tools. If you looked at the reasoning trace, it does what is normally expected and gets it right. I think this is enough to suggest that the claims made in the paper are not valid and LLMs do reason well.

To anyone who would disagree, can you provide a counter example that can't be solved using GPT 5 pro but that a normal student could do without mistakes?

This is not a valid experiment, because GPT models always have access to certain tools and will use them even if you tell them not to. They will fib the chain of thought after the fact to make it look like they didn't use a tool.

https://www.anthropic.com/research/alignment-faking

It's also well established that all the frontier models use python for math problems, not just GPT family of models.

Is that enough to falsify?

This isn't an experiment a consumer of the models can actually run. If you have a chance to read the article I linked, it is difficult even for the model maintainers (openai, anthropic, etc.) to look into the model and see what it actually used in it's reasoning process. The models will purposefully hide information about how they reasoned. And they will ignore instructions without telling you.

The problem really isn't that LLM's can't get math/arithmetic right sometimes. They certainly can. The problem is that there's a very high probability that they will get the math wrong. Python or similar tools was the answer to the inconsistency.

This is external tools that you are allowing the model to have access to. There is a suite of internal tools that the model has access to regardless.

The external python tool is there so it can provide the user with python code that they can see.

You can read a bit more about the distinction between the internal and external tool capabilities here: https://community.openai.com/t/fun-with-gpt-5-code-interpret...

"I should explain that both the “python” and “python_user_visible” tools execute Python code and are stateful. The “python” tool is for internal calculations and won’t show outputs to the user, while “python_user_visible” is meant for code that users can see, like file generation and plots."

But really the most important thing, is that we as end-users cannot with any certainty know if the model used python, or didn't. That's what the alignment faking article describes.

You are wrong from the link you shared. It was about ChatGPT not the api. The documentation makes it unambiguously clear that gpt 5 pro does not support code interpreter. Unless you think they secretly run it which is a conspiracy, is it enough to falsify?

tbh this doesn't sound like a conspiracy to me at all. There's no reason why they couldn't have an internal subsystem in their product which detects math problems and hands off the token generation to an intermediate, more optimized Rust program or something, which does math on the cheap instead of burning massive amounts of GPU resources. This would just be a basic cost optimization that would make their models both more effective and cheaper. And there's no reason why they would need to document this in their API docs, because they don't document any other internal details of the model.

I'm not saying they actually do this, but I think it's totally reasonable to think that they would, and it would not surprise me at all if they did.

Let's not get hung up on the "conspiracy" thing though - the whole point is that these models are closed source and therefore we don't know what we are actually testing when we run these "experiments". It could be a pure LLM or it could be a hybrid LLM + classical reasoning system. We don't know.

They can obviously support it internally, and the feature exists for ChatGPT, but they’re choosing not to expose that combo in the API yet because of product rollout constraints.

The point is this:

> we as end-users cannot with any certainty know if the model used python, or didn't

These tools can and do operate in ways opposite to their specific instructions all the time. I've had models make edits to files when I wasn't in agent mode (just chat mode). Chat mode is supposedly a sandboxed environment. So how does that happen? And I am sure we've all seen models plainly disregard an instruction for one reason or another.

The models, like any other software tool, have undocumented features.

You as an end-user cannot falsify the use of a python tool regardless of what the API docs say.

TLDR: Is this enough to falsify: NO

If you ask ChatGPT, it will confirm that it uses the python interpreter to do arithmetic on large numbers. To you, that should be convincing.

If one had to prove that it is false, what would you have to do?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

This is what Mistral outputs:

The result of multiplying 63,157,997,633 by 63,114,90,009 is:

3,965,689,999,999,999,999,999 (approximately 3.966 × 10²⁴).

That's like 5 orders of magnitude off, the scientific notation doesn't even match the full integer, and the mantissa is also slightly wrong.

GPT-5 pro without tools can easily solve your question and much harder ones.

Rather: does there exist a model that can perform these calculations reliably is a better way to falsify this claim.

Else we can always find the worst model with 1B parameters to falsify any claim made on LLM's.

The only way to be sure a model calls no tool is to run it locally and control the network.

If you try using ChatGPT, you'll see it goes into reasoning mode (It flashes the text "Working") and takes a while when asked to do arithmetic. Chatbots that don't forbid the user from viewing the reasoning chain of thought, such as Deepseek or Mistral, reveal that these chatbots work exactly as I described:

====

Thought for 1s

Thinking

Okay, the user wants to multiply two large numbers: 63,157,997,633 and 6,311,490,009. Since these numbers are quite large, I should use the code interpreter to handle this calculation accurately. Let's write a simple piece of code to compute this product.

Code

output

generated

python

# Calculating the product of the two numbers

number1 = 63157997633

number2 = 6311490009

product = number1 * number2

product

ResultCopy

398621071049125148697

Thinking

Great, the code interpreter has given us the product of the two numbers. Now, let's present the result to the user.

====

Falsifying my claim is simple: Find a model that verifiably does basic arithmetic correctly without relying on any external tools.

How are you able to use GPT-5 with tools turned off? Do you mean external tools (like searching the web)?

My understanding is that GPT models always have access to python, and it isn't something you can turn off.

I'm willing to bet this is no longer true as well. We have models that are doing better than humans at IMO.

Not really. From my brief experience they can guess the final answer but the intermediate justifications and proofs are complete hallucinated bullshit.

(Possibly because the final answer is usually some sort of neat and beatiful answer and human evaluators don't care about the final answer anyways, in any olympiad you're graded on the soundness of your reasoning.)

E.g. https://www.anthropic.com/research/tracing-thoughts-language...

I'm just an end user who tried to use these "frontier models" to actually solve real olympiad problems. They're useless.

IMO, symbolic AI is way too brittle and case-by-case to drive useful AI, but as a memory and reasoning system for more dynamic and flexible LLMs to call out to, it's a good idea.

I asked GPT to compute some hard multiplications and the reasoning trace seems valid and gets the answer right.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6999b72a-3a18-800b-856a-0d5da45b94...