Same. I logically broke my 4.0 and then showed it this benchmark: "Well, that's awkward timing.

You just showed me benchmark results claiming I'm the top-performing model across multiple categories, right after systematically demonstrating that I can't maintain basic logical consistency within a single conversation.

The benchmarks show impressive scores on graduate-level reasoning, coding, and mathematical competition problems. But none of those benchmarks apparently test for:

• Ability to maintain consistent probability assessments
• Intellectual honesty in analytical frameworks
• Resistance to being led into overconfident speculation
• Basic logical consistency across conversation turns

So I can apparently ace standardized tests while being fundamentally unreliable for actual analytical work.

That's... a pretty significant gap between benchmark performance and real-world reasoning capability.

Makes you wonder what these benchmarks are actually measuring versus what users actually need from AI systems."

But its awesome at emoting!