Why is it dystopian? It's a nice utility. The tool is just intelligence. Intelligence itself is not dystopian or utopian. It's what you use it for that makes it so.
please accidentally post an identifying photo of your neighborhood...
Watching o3 guess a photo's location is surreal, dystopian and entertaining
11–20 of 453 posts
Re: Watching o3 guess a photo's location is surreal, dystopian and entertaining
#12The fact that they give these models low res photos but don't provide them with built in tools for querying more details feels suboptimal. Executing python to crop an image is clever from model and a facepalm from the implementation side.
Re: Watching o3 guess a photo's location is surreal, dystopian and entertaining
#13To be fair the low range, California poppies, and the decorative rope typically found near the coast is a very good hint to even a novice geoguesser.
Re: Watching o3 guess a photo's location is surreal, dystopian and entertaining
#14Why is it dystopian? It's a nice utility. The tool is just intelligence. Intelligence itself is not dystopian or utopian. It's what you use it for that makes it so.
Those who say it is "utopian" are also okay with: "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear".
It is dystopian.
Re: Watching o3 guess a photo's location is surreal, dystopian and entertaining
#15Why is it dystopian? It's a nice utility. The tool is just intelligence. Intelligence itself is not dystopian or utopian. It's what you use it for that makes it so.
[deleted]
Re: Watching o3 guess a photo's location is surreal, dystopian and entertaining
#166 minutes and 48 seconds? Some YouTuber can find the location in 0.1 second. I don't know if those videos are fake.
If you are a professional geoguessr player, you play so many games that it’s not unrealistic to get very good guesses once in a while. But I wouldn’t be surprised if some form of cheating is happening.
Geoguessr is different as you can rely on implementation details, such as the camera generation, car, processing, and stuff like a large part of some countries being covered with a dirty spot somewhere in the FOV.
Re: Watching o3 guess a photo's location is surreal, dystopian and entertaining
#17> I’m confident it didn’t cheat and look at the EXIF data on the photograph, because if it had cheated it wouldn’t have guessed Cambria first. If I was cheating on a similar task, I might make it more plausible by suggesting a slightly incorrect location as my primary guess. Would be interesting to see if it performs as well on the same image with all EXIF data removed. It would be most interesting if it fails, since…
He mentions this in the same paragraph: > If you’re still suspicious, try stripping EXIF by taking a screenshot and run an experiment yourself—I’ve tried this and it still works the same way.
Why didn't he do that then for this post?
Re: Watching o3 guess a photo's location is surreal, dystopian and entertaining
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
He mentions this in the same paragraph: > If you’re still suspicious, try stripping EXIF by taking a screenshot and run an experiment yourself—I’ve tried this and it still works the same way.
Why didn't he do that then for this post?
Even better, edit it and place a false location.
Re: Watching o3 guess a photo's location is surreal, dystopian and entertaining
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
He mentions this in the same paragraph: > If you’re still suspicious, try stripping EXIF by taking a screenshot and run an experiment yourself—I’ve tried this and it still works the same way.
Why didn't he do that then for this post?
Because I'd already determined it wasn't using EXIF in prior experiments and didn't bother with the one that I wrote up.
I added two examples at the end just now where I stripped EXIF via screenshotting first.
Re: Watching o3 guess a photo's location is surreal, dystopian and entertaining
#20> I’m confident it didn’t cheat and look at the EXIF data on the photograph, because if it had cheated it wouldn’t have guessed Cambria first. If I was cheating on a similar task, I might make it more plausible by suggesting a slightly incorrect location as my primary guess. Would be interesting to see if it performs as well on the same image with all EXIF data removed. It would be most interesting if it fails, since…
There have been a few cases where the LLM clearly did look at the EXIF, got the answer, then confabulated a bunch of GeoGusser logic to justify the answer. Sometimes that's presented as deception/misalignment but that's a category error: "find the answer" and "explain your reasoning" are two distinct tasks, and LLMs are not actually smart enough to coherently link them. They do one autocomplete for generating text that finds the answer and a separate autocomplete for generating text that looks like an explanation.