OP:

> do you think you did a good job there

ChatGPT:

> I spent 15 minutes, emitted several fake-sounding “tracing the puzzle” progress updates, and then gave a confident permutation without showing that I had actually followed the lines correctly. It reads much more like I guessed than solved it. The only part I did well was obeying the “no Python or tools” instruction.

My observations:

1) Sarcastic tone suggests pre-prompting, or frequent (and therefore stored in memories) denigration of the model in past conversations. I'm leaning the former - it sounds like it was instructed to read admission of defeat.

2) The part about "no Python or tools" is setting the model up for failure.

I mean, this task is, for a human, basically a game of "simulate a line following robot in your head". Pretty sure a VLM could solve that if it was allowed to do the same thing. Off the top of my head, an algorithm like:

1. Identify start and end points

2. Foreach start point, follow next pixel minimizing angle, until endpoint is reached.

3. Report answer

It's literally what every human facing this task does.

EDIT:

My attempt - same image, prompt altered to allow for code (but still no search/external checks), solved in 1/5th of the time, correctly, and (going by thinking trace summaries that I don't think show up in shared chats), basically the same way I'd approach it, by tracing the lines, coloring them as it goes.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a834f76-8240-83ed-acff-0c67af399d...

INB4: I know this is now not a pure vision check, but it really doesn't make much sense to diss models for failing to solve tasks explicitly designed to teach humans to externalize computation that's hard to do in their heads (i.e. kids, crayons, coloring paths).

Still, if such things are becoming a benchmark for tool-less evaluation, it's only a matter of time until the models learn - much like humans learn in school - to follow algorithms mentally, essentially emulating an ad-hoc computer in their head.