Nooo. I just asked Claude (Sonnet 5 Medium) how many I's are in assassin, and it said 2. Granted, it got several words correct before this. But no, they still aren't great at this letter-counting thing.

I don't think we should count the lower tier models if we're discussing what the top ones are capable of. No one was suggesting that Sonnet is AGI.

Meanwhile Qwen3.8 27B got both the 'f's and the 'i's questions right.

Anyone know why they aren't good at this?

Tokens are the most basic input unit of an LLM. But tokens don't generally correspond to words or letters, rather sub-word sequences. So Strawberry might be broken up into two tokens 'straw' and 'berry'. It has trouble distinguishing features that are "sub-token" like specific letter sequences because it doesn't see letter sequences but just the token as a single atomic unit. 'Straw' and 'r' are two tokens but an LLM is entirely blind to the fact that 'straw' has one 'r' in it.

As an analogy, I might ask you to identify the relative activations of each of the three cone types on your retina as I present some solid color image to your eyes. But of course you can't do this, you simply do not have cognitive access to that information. Individual color experiences are your basic vision tokens.

It seems trivially fixable if you RLHF an LLM to always count characters deterministically with:

  sum(1 for c in word if c == "r")

I wonder why haven't major labs done this yet.

LLMs see tokens, not words spelled out with letters.

Imagine verbally asking someone who has never seen written text the same question: unless they memorized the answer for the specific word you're asking about, they'd have to guess.

People assume that's the reason because it's intuitive and "strawberry" is one token. But that doesn't explain why those models would also often get it wrong for "StRaWbErRy" or even "s-t-r-a-w-b-e-r-r-y", where the r's are not combined into one token.

We don't know what was going on inside the closed source GPT models, but this paper investigated on some of the open-weight models and found it's not due to tokenization: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00778

And circling back around to AGI, tokenization or some other underlying cause should pose no issue. A competent human would think to write a program (ie create a tool) to do the job. It's routine for a carpenter to make a jig.

i asked opus 4.5 what the problem was and it said it pattern matched too much. i asked it how it should do it, it wrote a file that told itself to stop pattern matching. it wrote a file that started with the following and then had an english language procedure for how to count letters. so it knew the algorithm already, but the "instinct" was to pattern match rather than running the algorithm.

CRITICAL: Do Not Skip Steps

Your instinct will be to "just know" the answer. This is how you get it wrong.

You don't see characters. You see tokens. Your "intuition" about character counts is pattern-matching, not counting. It is unreliable.

You MUST execute this procedure step-by-step, writing out each step visibly.

It comes and goes... My point is we're not near AGI.