I have no idea what Bubeck meant, and I agree about OpenAI's hypocrisy, but the problems with that infamous (and non-peer-reviewed) Apple preprint were the natu

I have no idea what Bubeck meant, and I agree about OpenAI's hypocrisy, but the problems with that infamous (and non-peer-reviewed) Apple preprint were the nature of the tasks (insanely repetitive), the fact that simple coded solutions were not novel, and the automated assessment occurred without a human in the loop. Most models in that study appear to have "failed" by offering a Python code solution to generate the repetitive assessment steps, rather than just mindlessly copying those steps out. This was discussed at length at the time. None of this means that models "reason", whatever that means - but simply that the Apple study was not useful evidence either way.