We should remind you that like e.g. students can be more and more proficient in feigning, and examiners must remain focused on judging if the "understanding" -

We should remind you that like e.g. students can be more and more proficient in feigning, and examiners must remain focused on judging if the "understanding" - the actual "performance indicator", the sought - is there, beyond any surface of alluring presentation, all those hints we receive from LLM use make us return to the point, "but can it do procedural reasoning - is it reliable"? That something proceeds in a direction of "being more and more convincing" is a bad direction, detrimental, not progressive, when what counts is "actually having the juice". > Is this ...? ... they all vary dramatically in problems If the above were achieved, it would be an architectural revolution, and we would have been informed. If it is "more of the same, but more advanced", then the submitted shows a structural problem.