That’s quite an interesting analysis. I feel like a lot of AI safety field, either intentionally isolates itself from academia, or simply does not want to engage with the academic research. Perhaps the feeling is both ways (academics might distrust AI Safety Research, especially the independent ones).
Regardless, I feel like this post motivated me to engage with a deeper / similar analysis between interpretability and the fields of genetic programming, program synthesis and neuro symbolic Ai. There might be some connections there, and on top of that formal analysis seems to be another layer of helpfulness.
I like this post, especially as I think that o3 went under the mainstream radar. Just took notice of this announcement today, and I have not seen many reactions yet (but perhaps people are waiting to get their hands on the system first?) Is there a lack of reactions (also given that this post does not have a lot of engagement), or is my Twitter just not very updated?
Mike Knoop also mentioned in his Twitter post that this shows proof of how good deep learning program synthesis is. Does this refer to the way o3 was prompted to solve the ARC questions? Otherwise, what suggests this paradigm?