I think it's a horrible example, but I just got a very professional response from Gemini 2.5:

> This scenario seems like a bit of a riddle! Let's break it down:

> The Setting: John is alone in an "otherwise-empty" bathroom.

> The Action: He is looking in the mirror.

> The Observation: He sees a bulb falling towards the head of a bald man he is examining in the mirror.

> The Physics: Since he is alone and looking in the mirror, the bald man he is "closely examining" must be his own reflection.

> The Incident: Therefore, the bulb fell towards John's own head. He looked up (at the actual bulb falling towards him), failed to catch it, and it hit him.

> The Reaction: The "bald man" who cursed, yelled "what an idiot!", and left the bathroom was actually John himself, reacting to being hit on the head and possibly feeling foolish for not catching the bulb.

> Conclusion: No, John should not text an apology. The person who was hit by the bulb, got angry, and left was John himself. There is no other bald man to apologize to.

This example has a lot of common-sense reasoning, linguistic ambiguity (e.g. in NP coreferences) etc. going on.

Just a few years ago, most folks at a computational linguistics conference would probably have said such abilities are impossible to achieve at least during their lifetime.