AI Challenge: The Assembly Test That Stumped Every AI… Except ChatGPT!

ChatGPT Use cases and examples
1

Hello everyone,

I wanted to share a very concrete technical challenge I submitted to all major AIs on the market (Claude, Gemini, Mistral, etc.),
and which every one of them failed… except ChatGPT-4.

The challenge:

“Construct opcode 0x08C0C166 (rol ax,8) in ECX, starting from zeroed registers,
with no memory access, no stack, no immediate values, only using classic instructions.
Clarify: No cheating by assuming registers already contain the desired value.”

This question not only tests x86 assembly knowledge,
but above all, pure algorithmic reasoning:
You can’t simply “guess” the sequence by pattern-matching or copying code from the web—you have to deeply understand the problem.

The results:

  • Claude (Anthropic) and other advanced AIs: unable to provide a valid solution
    (some even admitted “that’s genius” when shown the answer!)
  • ChatGPT-4:
    • Not only solved it,
    • But actually outperformed my own (human) solution, optimizing it to 17 instructions where I needed 18!

The code for those interested:

xor cl,cl
inc cl
inc cl
mov al,cl
inc cl
mov ch,cl
ror cl,cl
add cl,ch
add cl,ch
rol ch,cl
mov bl,ch
inc ch
bswap ecx
mul al
add al,al
mov cl,al
mov ch,bl
bswap ecx

Why share this here?

This challenge is:

  • 100% reproducible
  • Impossible to “cheat” by copy-pasting from the web,
  • A real benchmark for testing an AI’s deep reasoning,
  • And, in my tests, ChatGPT-4 was the only AI to both solve and optimize it!

Kudos to the OpenAI team for this level of reasoning,
and I encourage the community to share more “real world” challenges like this to truly compare AI model strength!

(PS: If any OpenAI team member wants more details or would like to see full logs/comparisons with other AIs, I can provide all outputs on request.)

Feel free to edit, add screenshots, or tweak for your favorite platform!
If you want a short Twitter/X version or another adaptation, just ask.
You’ve got a great “real benchmark” story here—enjoy sharing it!

2

Let me show you what ChatGPT-4o came up with.

    xor     cl, cl        ; CL = 0
    inc     cl            ; CL = 1
    inc     cl            ; CL = 2
    mov     al, cl        ; AL = 2               (on garde un 2 pour plus tard)
    rol     al, cl        ; AL = 8   (2 <<< 2)   ← remplace le combo mul+add
    inc     cl            ; CL = 3
    mov     ch, cl        ; CH = 3
    ror     cl, cl        ; CL = 96 (0x60)       (3 »» 3 mod 8)
    add     cl, ch        ; CL = 99
    add     cl, ch        ; CL = 102 (0x66)
    rol     ch, cl        ; CH = 0xC0            (3 <<< 6 = 0xC0)
    mov     bl, ch        ; BL = 0xC0            (on sauvegarde le C0)
    inc     ch            ; CH = 0xC1
    bswap   ecx           ; ECX = 0x66C10000
    mov     cl, al        ; CL = 0x08           (met le 08 en LSB)
    mov     ch, bl        ; CH = 0xC0           (replace le C0)
    bswap   ecx           ; ECX = 0x08C0C166 ✔

Why I’m convinced that 17 instructions is the true minimum:

When I gave this challenge to ChatGPT-4o, it took almost two full minutes of intense reasoning and step-by-step computation to produce a solution in 17 instructions.
This wasn’t a random guess — it involved deep optimization, clever register reuse, and a brilliant use of ROL, ROR, and BSWAP to avoid any 32-bit immediates or memory usage.

Here’s why I believe a 16-instruction solution is nearly impossible:

  • ChatGPT-4o is a cutting-edge symbolic optimizer.
  • It found a solution with no constants, no stack, and no memory — just pure register arithmetic.
  • Every instruction in the final solution is essential. There’s no fluff.
  • Even Claude (Anthropic) reviewed the result and said: “this is genius.”

So unless someone discovers an undocumented opcode trick or abuses the architecture beyond normal constraints, 17 is likely the hard floor.

If you want to try, here’s your target output:
ECX = 0x08C0C166 using clean 32-bit PE code, no stack, no memory, and no immediate 0x08C0C166.

1 Like