Live data from Hacker News

Watching o3 model sweat over a Paul Morphy mate-in-2

alexop.dev

11–20 of 73 posts

Re: Watching o3 model sweat over a Paul Morphy mate-in-2

#11

O3 is massively underwhelming and is obviously tuned to be sycophantic. Claude reigns supreme.

Depends on the task I think. O3 is really effective at going off and doing research, try giving it a complex task which involves lots of browsing/searching and watch how it behaves. Claude cannot do anything like that right now. I do find O3’s tone of voice a bit odd

Re: Watching o3 model sweat over a Paul Morphy mate-in-2

#13
Where does this obsession over giving binary logic tasks to LLMs come from ? New LLM breakthroughs are about handling blurry logic, non precise requirements and spitting vague human realistic outputs. Who care how well it can add integers or solve chess puzzles ? We have decades of computer science on those topics already

Re: Watching o3 model sweat over a Paul Morphy mate-in-2

#15
post #13

Where does this obsession over giving binary logic tasks to LLMs come from ? New LLM breakthroughs are about handling blurry logic, non precise requirements and spitting vague human realistic outputs. Who care how well it can add integers or solve chess puzzles ? We have decades of computer science on those topics already

If we're going to call LLMs intelligent, they should be performant at these tasks as well.

Re: Watching o3 model sweat over a Paul Morphy mate-in-2

#18
post #17

So... it failed to solve the puzzle? That seems distinctly unimpressive, especially for a puzzle with a fixed start state and a limited set of possible moves.

> That seems distinctly unimpressive

I cannot understate how impressive this is to me, having been involved in ai research projects and robotics in years gone by.

This is a general purpose model, given an image and human written request that then step by step analyses the image, iterates through various options, tries to write code to solve the problem and then searches the internet for help. It reads multiple results and finds an answer, checks to validate it and then comes back to the user.

I had a robot that took ages to learn to plan tic tac toe by example and if the robot moved originally there was a solid chance it thought the entire world had changed and would freak out because it thought it might punch through the table.

This is also a chess puzzle marked as very hard that a person who is good at chess should give themselves fifteen minutes to solve. The author of the chess.com blog containing this puzzle only solved about half of them!

This is not an image analysis bot, it's not a chess bot, it's a general system I can throw bad english at.

Re: Watching o3 model sweat over a Paul Morphy mate-in-2

#19
post #18
post #17

So... it failed to solve the puzzle? That seems distinctly unimpressive, especially for a puzzle with a fixed start state and a limited set of possible moves.

> That seems distinctly unimpressive I cannot understate how impressive this is to me, having been involved in ai research projects and robotics in years gone by. This is a general purpose model, given an image and human written request that then step by step analyses the image, iterates through various options, tries to write code to solve the problem and then searches the internet for help. It reads multiple result…

Yes, I agree. Like I said, in the end it did what a human would do: google for the answer. Still, it was interesting to see how the reasoning unfolded. Normally, humans train on these kinds of puzzles until they become pure pattern recognition. That's why you can't become a grandmaster if you only start learning chess as an adult — you need to be a kid and see thousands of these problems early on, until recognizing them becomes second nature. It's something humans are naturally very good at.

Re: Watching o3 model sweat over a Paul Morphy mate-in-2

#20
post #13

Where does this obsession over giving binary logic tasks to LLMs come from ? New LLM breakthroughs are about handling blurry logic, non precise requirements and spitting vague human realistic outputs. Who care how well it can add integers or solve chess puzzles ? We have decades of computer science on those topics already

If we're going to call LLMs intelligent, they should be performant at these tasks as well.

We called our computers intelligent and couldnt do so many things LLMs can do now easily.

But yeah calling them intelligent is a marketing trick that is very efficient

Post reply on HN