Excellent idea, most terrible execution. Comparison are completely subjective, problem space is too simplistic for today's AI, the resultstable simply ignores that a face isn't a cube (therefore, gpt 5 shouldn't have 100% success) and the retry is uneven. Also, given the random nature of AI, sampling once each model isn't very scientific.

This feels like a kid trying to do science. The will is there, but lacks experience.

It said “3D-looking Rubrik cube”. Maybe your cube looks different but I’m pretty sure for everyone else, the GPT result doesn’t look like a 3D-looking Rubrik cube.

It’s still science if you say “this appears to be a specimen of X” even if you don’t do a genetic test. Things don’t automatically graduate to science either by repetition or by formal verification. What makes a rubics cube is obvious enough that you can pass or fail.

Show us how it’s done then, talk is cheap