ChatGPT and Cursor both failed hard. Even after walking them backwards through the flaws in their answers they just refused to see it. When I stated flat out what the answer was ChatGPT agreed in the end. Cursor did not. Cursors initial reply was -200g. Then I challenged "But I did not tare it after adding the almonds." and again it failed with: "That doesn't change the final reading: it still displays -200g.". When I walked it back further with "If I put the container on the food scale, tare it and remove the container, what does the scale read?" it correctly replied "negative the weight of the empty container" but ... when I asked "So does this impact the agents answer to my original question?" it replied "No, it doesn't change the answer—the scale still reads -200g". LLMs are NOT good at even basic numeric accounting.
You keep saying LLMs can’t do this but I get the correct result each time without drama.
Cursor uses Grok so far as I can tell, which is.. not great and I hope you did not try ChatGPT free or 5.6 or Luna.. you cannot unfortunately just say “Claude” or “ChatGPT”. Their lineup is sufficiently complex - each with their own failure modes - to warrant some further specification.
I think you are “directionally” correct, as these clankers like to say, because language models are indeed not known for their arithmetic wizardry. However, as my correct answers show, they can do it just fine.
[–] bodeadly 1 day ago
[–] idontknowmann 1 day ago
Cursor uses Grok so far as I can tell, which is.. not great and I hope you did not try ChatGPT free or 5.6 or Luna.. you cannot unfortunately just say “Claude” or “ChatGPT”. Their lineup is sufficiently complex - each with their own failure modes - to warrant some further specification.
I think you are “directionally” correct, as these clankers like to say, because language models are indeed not known for their arithmetic wizardry. However, as my correct answers show, they can do it just fine.
Size, unfortunately, matters.
[–] speff 23 hours ago