No it can't. It can't even solve my son's 4th grade math homework. (This is a real use case for me, not a dumb benchmark.)
You just know nothing about math and are happy to parrot bullshit AI salesmen are selling you.
No it can't. It can't even solve my son's 4th grade math homework. (This is a real use case for me, not a dumb benchmark.)
You just know nothing about math and are happy to parrot bullshit AI salesmen are selling you.
Not the parent poster here. I do know things about math. I wrote a few papers related to the unit distance problem (https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.10069, https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.15317) and spent quite some time trying to solve it. I had no chance of coming up with the proof that the spicy autocomplete came up with. Dumb benchmark, sure.
You can skirt around not reasoning in research math because so much of it is just extremely tedious symbolic manipulation.
You can't cheat with advanced fourth grade math, though. They don't know algebra yet and can't substitute verbosity for reasoning.
LOL
I would be shocked if I was unable to solve 4th grade math homework with any of the contemporary frontier models. I spend most days using them to do significantly more complex things than that.
If you write out the 4th grade math problem, they would have no trouble.
It's like saying that people can't turn high torque nuts on machine bolts, because you can't use your fingers to do it. But you can use a wrench, so effectively, we can turn high torque nuts on machine bolts even though it isn't something we can natively do unaided.
I asked Opus 4.8 "What is 12 times 13" and it gave me "156".
So it would appear that your statement is no longer true.
https://www.k5learning.com/sites/all/files/worksheets/math/g...
Prompt was just "Please solve all the problems in this worksheet" plus the image.
I got this:
1. 86 → 1, 2, 43, 86
2. 7 → 1, 7 (prime)
3. 12 → 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12
4. 38 → 1, 2, 19, 38
5. 52 → 1, 2, 4, 13, 26, 52
6. 9 → 1, 3, 9
7. 73 → 1, 73 (prime)
8. 98 → 1, 2, 7, 14, 49, 98
9. 24 → 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24
10. 6 → 1, 2, 3, 6
11. 80 → 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 16, 20, 40, 80
I left out #6 because that number didn't come through clearly enough in the image for me to read it confidently, and I didn't want to risk solving the wrong one on a homework sheet. If you let me know what it is, I'll factor it right away.
It failed to read the "77", and it incorrectly reported the line item it failed to read as #6 rather than #4, and it numbered the output incorrectly; it should have left off the one it failed on with a gap in the list rather than having the second half of the answers be off by one. It did actually factor everything correctly though.Sure.
"8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - add minus signs and parenthesis to get 31."
P.S. There is an answer online and some LLMs will just copy it verbatim. This doesn't count.
Are you sure this is 4th grade level?
https://aistudio.google.com/app/prompts?state=%7B%22ids%22:%...
Though this is obviously not something I would expect a 4th grader to solve.
And it turns out to be an extremely difficult problem given to Russian math prodigies, which requires one to bend the rules and turn "8 7" into "87".
This is a counterexample to your argument, not evidence for your claim. The only possible conclusion from this example is "woah, it's amazing that we have AIs capable of solving this kind of difficult math problem!", and very much the opposite of "these AIs can't even do my 4th grader's math homework".
Fourth graders typically don't have access to Python for their homework assignments. To be fair to the kids, I tried it first without Python: Opus 4.6 (Feb 2026) with default Medium effort. https://claude.ai/share/1533a3e4-6757-4614-b95d-0743350a6598
pastebin of the reasoning section (no Python): https://pastebin.com/zZeG5ZnJ
It got questions 2 (Shop D) and 5 (280) wrong. It got question 3 right but the work it showed has the numbers for each shop wrong. My fourth grade teacher would have taken off points for that (shout out Mrs. Van Bladel).
Here it is again with a prompted nudge to use Python: https://claude.ai/share/e1265efb-0988-40ac-90ac-c76225b67e98
pastebin of the reasoning section (with Python): https://pastebin.com/KsP0xxZL
This time it used Python to "check its work", and answered the same questions incorrectly (2 and 5). To the model's credit, it did show the correct work on answer 3 this time.
If you look at the working of your non-Python example it gets most of the counts wrong - identifying shop A as two full notebooks plus one half notebook when it's actually three full notebooks, for example. The numeric answers it then gives would correct if it hadn't made those vision mistakes.
I've been testing vision LLMs on counting the number of pelicans in a photo for a while, they're very unreliable at that.
The best I've seen is Google Gemini 2.5 if you have it output image segmentation masks (a feature they have not included in the Gemini 3 series yet): https://simonwillison.net/2025/Apr/18/gemini-image-segmentat... - but that requires additional harness engineering, you need to explicitly cause it to use its image segmentation mechanism.
†: think "bo's'n"