it feels incredibly dumb now, getting some really basic questions wrong and just throwing nuance to the wind. for claiming to be more human, it understands far less. for example: if I start at a negative net worth how long until I am a millionaire if I consistently grow 2.5% each month? Anyone here would have a basic understand the premise and be able to start answering, 5.1 says it's impossible, with hand holding it will insist you can only reach 0 but that growth isn't the same as a source of income. further hand holding gets it to the point of insisting it cannot continue without making assumptions, goading it will have it arrive at the incorrect value of 72 months, further goading will get 240 months, it took the lazy way out and assumed a static inflation from 2024, then a static income.
o3 is getting it no problem, first try, a simple and reasonable answer, 101 months.
claude (opus 4.1) does as well, 88-92 months, though it uses target inflation numbers instead of something more realistic.
Your question doesn’t make sense to me as stated. I interpret “consistently grow at 2.5% per month” as every month, your net worth is multiplied by 1.025 in which case it will indeed never change sign. If there is some other positive “income” term then that needs to be explicitly stated otherwise the premise is contradicted.
o3 is getting it no problem, first try, a simple and reasonable answer, 101 months. claude (opus 4.1) does as well, 88-92 months, though it uses target inflation numbers instead of something more realistic.