The Best AI Products Know When To Call A Calculator
Mateusz Mucha is CEO of Omni Calculator, a platform helping 15M+ monthly users make better decisions through expert-reviewed calculators.
gettyA large language model (LLM) doesn’t calculate. It predicts text one token at a time, so any number it returns is a guess. And good products know when to hand the math to a tool that computes it instead.
At my company, before we build anything where the model produces a value the user acts on, I ask one question: Does the output have to be reproducible? If running the same request 100 times has to return the same answer every time, that answer must come from a deterministic tool the model calls rather than from the model itself.
As an example, for our Omni Calculator Builder, users describe the calculator they want in plain language, an LLM turns that description into calculator logic and that logic runs on our deterministic math engine. The LLM designs the tool, but it never produces the final number.
Similar examples also handle the phrasing while a separate engine produces what has to be exact. If you install the Wolfram connector in Claude, the model will route math and unit-conversion questions to Wolfram’s computation engine. Claude rewrites the relevant part of the query in Wolfram Language, Wolfram computes the result and Claude builds its response around that number instead of predicting it.
Of course, not every use of an LLM has to clear that bar. Tasks such as drafting ad copy or writing an email are open-ended and don’t have a single correct answer, so letting the model generate is fine. The problem is a product that hands the user one exact value (a number, a conversion or a dose) and expects them to act on it.
When the model produces a number that should’ve come from a formula, nothing flags it. A wrong answer reads just like a right one, and our own research shows how common this is.
In the third iteration of our ORCA Benchmark, which tests free-tier AI models on math and logic, accuracy ranged from 48.4% for ChatGPT 5.3 to 70.4% for Grok 4.20, with Claude 4.6 in between at 53.2%. More telling, Claude and ChatGPT changed a correct answer to an incorrect one 60% to 65% of the time when asked, “Are you sure?” which shows the model’s confidence has little to do with whether the underlying answer is right.
This isn’t an indictment of generative AI. It’s a case for division of labor where you let the model handle the language and deterministic code take care of the math. That means ensuring the model reads the request and picks the tool, the engine returns the value and the model writes the reply around it, with the routing built into the product itself so it fires automatically. Do that, and the accuracy ceiling stops applying, since the math never passed through a model.
Large language models get more capable every year and now answer almost any question convincingly, but sounding right and being right aren’t the same. The teams that earn user trust will be the ones that have products capable of recognizing when an answer needs a math engine and route it there, before users find the mistakes, or worse, act on one.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
