The answer is wrong though (not just because it's missing leading zeros, but perhaps you didn't copy the right input?) and it's certainly not the shortest way to output that.
Not sure I follow- the answer matches minus the first leading zeros. Change the range from 0-32, and it matches exactly. So it pretty clearly recognized the pattern and produced working code.
This question is a pretty obscure benchmark. Another commenter has it just printing the string, as suggested.
If there's some weird math trick to get an optimal implementation, it's probably beyond the grasp of nearly all actual people.
Well, it's both dumb and smart: it's smart in the sense that it recognized the pattern in the first place, and it's dumb that it made such a silly error (and missed obvious ways to make it shorter).
This is the problem with these systems: "roughly correct, but not quite, and ends up with the wrong answer". In the case of a simple program that's easy to spot and correct for (assuming you already know to program well – I fear for students) but in more soft topics that's a lot harder. When I see people post "GPT-4 summarized the post as [...]" it may be correct, or it may have missed one vital paragraph or piece of nuance which would drastically alter the argument.
This question is a pretty obscure benchmark. Another commenter has it just printing the string, as suggested.
If there's some weird math trick to get an optimal implementation, it's probably beyond the grasp of nearly all actual people.