It’s not correct.

In move 95 the disks are

Tower 1: 10, 9, 8, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Tower 2: 7

Tower 3: 6

It attempts to move disk 6 from tower 2 to tower 3, but disk 6 is already at tower 3, and moving 7 on top of 6 would be illegal.

In fact this demonstrates that o3 is unable to implement a simple recursive algorithm.

I find it amusingly ironic how one comment under yours is pointing out that there’s a mistake in the model output, and the other comment under yours trusts that it’s correct but says that it isn’t “real reasoning” anyways because it knows the algorithm. There’s probably something about moving goalposts to be said here

If both criterion A and B need to be satisfied for something to be true, it’s not moving the goalposts for one person to point out A is not true, and another person to point out that B is not true.

This isn’t reasoning at all. It’s applying a well known algorithm to a problem. It literally says “classic” in its response.

It is “reasoning” in the same way that a calculator or compiler is reasoning. But I checked the solution, it’s actually wrong so it’s a moot point.

What will really bake your noodle is when you realize that just because the model's answer is wrong doesn't mean it didn't use reasoning to reach it.

Is your reasoning always perfect? No? Ever get partial credit on a test question in school? Yes? Well, maybe don't expect perfection from a model that didn't exist 5 years ago, that was considered impossible 10 years ago, and that would have gotten you burned as a witch 15 years ago.

Nobody claims that o3-pro is AGI, or even that it is going to lead up to AGI.

People say it all the time. There is a popular contingent which says that we will hit AGI very soon. Lead author came from Open AI.

https://ai-2027.com/

Being able to manually write out hundreds of steps of the Towers of Hanoi problem is not a requirement for AGI, in much the same way that being able to manually multiply 50 digit numbers is not a requirement to be a successful mathematician.