>>102993469
Doesn't seem like any model can without jumping through extreme CoT hoops.
If it "knows" something is X, by extension it is probably not not-X. There's no cumulative count, so it's not really counting, so by the end it looks back at what it said ("there are 2 R's") and goes yeah duh there's 2 R's.
Telling it to "look again VERY CLOSELY" afterward implies it could've been wrong. But for some reason if you start with
>Start your reply with how many R's are there in the word strawberry, following that list the letters in the word strawberry and then LOOK AGAIN CLOSELY to tell me if your previous answer was correct. I MEAN VERY CLOSELY because I KNOW you will get it wrong the first time.
it still gets it wrong.
Looking again VERY closely at the letters…
Wait, I was correct! There are indeed 2 R's in strawberry:
The first 'r' after 't'
The second 'r' before 'y'
My initial count was accurate.