o3 doesn’t seem that groundbreaking to me. It seems iterative. 

We’ve known that computers are “smarter” than us. Since the 80s. That’s why we use them. 

Let me know when these models show *intention* and *creativity*. 

That’s what makes us different. 

Until then they remain really, really, really good word predictors.

leader • reader • taco eater • fly eagles fly • @bunches • /whiskey • /nativefun • previously addepar, linkedin • https://nf.td/derek

Also we know o1 is best at deceiving the user with wrong information. O3 will probably excel at this