For reference: here’s my post at the time about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43732866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43732866 — that includes

For reference: here’s my post at the time about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43732866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43732866 — that includes the original trace. This is a fairly heavy ontological argument; in my case, I meant quite simply that it called up exiftools, read the GPS location, reasoned about the location based on the GPS, and then when it responded claimed to recognize the visuals of the mountain. What was visible in the traces was the tool calling and thinking, what was visible in the public response was the scenery visualization. Modern models understand their CoT is observable, but I don’t know that o3 did. In fact, it demonstrated ignorance of my ability to see CoT in this example. I think it’s been an open question until recently whether CoT had infinite, some or little observability benefits —- I don’t think it’s the case that the industry thinks it has no observability benefits even today.