It didn't go so well for me. I need to master the special sauce to get better results.

32 is close and the reasoning is almost there, but the correct answer is 34 feet because I am leading them.

I started with the 'man from st ives' riddle and tried to create a novel and simple version of the riddle with a clear answer. I think I would have accepted 32 as a good effort, or even just 2 if it said they all have hooves, but 8 and 11 are just wrong.

I find it hard to believe that it can actually obtain any of these certifications when it can't perform any original analytical examination of anything.

Go ahead and try and ask it to perform analysis on publicly available information and it will fail. It can repeat analysis that anybody else has already done and maybe recombine and repackage it in a useful summary but it is wholly unable to answer a simple question like, "If I am leading a sow with seven piglets how many feet are there?".

It's the saxophone backpack problem all over again they never seem to have figured that part out. It's not really creative or intelligent, not yet. It's just brute force fitting pregenerated reasons together until they fit better.

>EDIT: I tried to get it to explain the logic it used. I am somehow even more disappointed.

If every single Twitter user including all of the bots bought blue check marks, and all of that money went straight to the bank and none of it had to be used on expenses, it would still take nearly 10 years for Twitter to make up that missing $200 billion.

Back in reality though, only a small percentage of users are willing to buy blue check marks, all and more of that money is going to service debt payments, Even without paying rent or salaries Twitter still has expenses, and the business doesn't have 10 years to become financially solvent.

When dealing with bird law you should consult an expert in bird law.