Hacker News Reader

> Looking forward to the inevitable goalpost-moving of "that's not real reasoning"

It did a web lookup.

It is not comparing humans and o3 with equal resources.

That's really not a fair assessment.

It used search in 2 of 5 rounds, and it already knew the correct road in one of those rounds (just look at the search terms it used).

If you read the chain of thought output, you cannot dismiss their capability that easily.

Why is it not a fair assessment to say it is comparing two "clients" with different resources if one can do a web lookup and the other cannot?

You note yourself that it was meaningful in another round.

> Also, the web search was only meaningful in the Austria round. It did use it in the Ireland round too, but as you can see by the search terms it used, it already knew the road solely from image recognition.

I thought it might matter somewhat in that one Austria round. I was incorrect - I re-ran both rounds where the model used search, without search this time, and the results were nearly identical. I updated the post with the details.

That's why I'm saying it's unfair to just claim it's doing a web lookup. No, it's way more capable than that.

That isnt my claim. My claim is that they have access to different reaources. Whether that makes a difference it seems not but maybe it does.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com