I don't think it works reliably over 100 invokations of the prompt. The paper tries to get provable situations where 0 ignored constraints happen/are possible.

I'm impressed that it is working more often than not, but we need provable guarantees.

If you ask 100 humans the same thing, you'll get some mistakes too. I don't think the point is whether it makes mistakes. The Chat GPT response shown above is clearly more interesting and impressive / displays something more seemingly like intelligence than the Bard response provided. At some point scaling these things up enough becomes indistinguishable from intelligence, and at that point maybe it is.

> If you ask 100 humans the same thing, you'll get some mistakes too

Yes, still, it's pretty easy to find a somewhat good judgement human who never does that mistake. If you tell him/her: "This is of utmost importance: ..." — But as of now, these text gen machine learning programs don't totally understand that?