[raincole]

Probably zero. At the end of the day people pay for LLMs that write better code or summarize PDFs of hundreds of pages faster, not the ones that can count the letter r's better.

When LLMs can't count r's: see? LLMs can't think. Hoax!

When LLMs count r's: see? They patched and benchmark-maxxed. Hoax!

You just can't reason with the anti-LLM group.

[toraway]

Whenever an "LLM fail" goes viral like the car wash question, you can observe the exact same wording of the question get "fixed" within a week or so. With slight variations in phrasing still able to replicate the problem.

Followed by lots of "works perfectly for me, why are people even talking about this?"

I can't say what exactly they're doing behind the scenes but it's a consistent pattern among the big SOTA model providers. With obvious incentive to "fix" the problem so users will then organically "debunk" the meme as they try it themselves and share their experiences.

[simianwords]

You are misremembering. There’s no patch. All these examples used the instant model.

[coldtea]

The same non-argument could be said for all kinds of cheating on benchmarks by tech companies and yet we have tons of documented example of them caught with pants down.

>You just can't reason with the anti-LLM group.

On the contrary, the reasoning is simple and consistent:

LLMs can't count r's shows that LLM don't actually think the way we understand thought (since nobody with the kind of high skills they have in other areas would fail that). And because of that, there are (likely) patches for commonly reported cases, since it's a race to IPO and benchmark-maxxing is very much conceivable.