71–80 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And just like any other sport it has virtually no usefulness in real life
Yeah who needs well-being, a healthy back or cardiovascular health anyway?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it a joke? It is like any other sport or Olympiad, it involves solving faster, accurately and potentially of problems you haven't seen before. There is no direct correlation between competitive programming like CodeJam/ICPC and leetcode. They don't target the same audience at all. I couldn't get to the top of these but I do admire people who do, they are some of the absolutely brilliant people I have worked wi…
Depends what you’re hiring for. Firstly the interview should be structured with an aim to maximize correlation between success on the interview and success on the job. If you’re not thinking along these lines you aren’t even playing the game. For most startups, the right criteria to screen for is pace and quality of code, plus work ethic. You can ask a relatively easy coding problem, whether it be algorithmic/data st…
>I print out 10-15 code snippets (not just code, but also UNIX commands, regular expressions, SQL queries and many other things). I then go through and ask: what does this snippet do, how does it work, are there any bugs, etc.? Reading code (as opposed to writing) means I can cover a lot of ground extremely quickly, spending no more than a minute or two on each problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main difference is the audience of both is different. Leetcode works like this. Company A is asking these 100 questions with this frequency; let me solve these questions so that when I encounter these in the interview I can solve them then. The whole premise of Leetcode is on giving a question bank to what is already being asked. The aim is to clear the base bar a company has set.
It makes sense why someone who is good at LC via pattern recognition might not be as good at competitive programming. However, it’s not clear why the reverse would be true. Surely someone good at solving unencountered algorithmic problems would be good at LC?
The problem is LeetCode is SO BORING for anyone ever tried competitive programming so people usually won't do it at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also a cute prompt I saw on the same twitter thread ``` This is a variant of the monty hall problem: Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors. IMPORTANT: All the doors are transparent. Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who clearly knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to…
> I wonder how gpt-4 does. The problem is that as soon as people started tricking ChatGPT 3 into problems like that, the correct answers are now being used to train the next versions and are going to be part of the dataset. So GPT-4 or GPT-5 may get the answer right, but that still wouldn't mean anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also a cute prompt I saw on the same twitter thread ``` This is a variant of the monty hall problem: Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors. IMPORTANT: All the doors are transparent. Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who clearly knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to…
GPT 4 gave me this answer: In this variant of the Monty Hall problem, since all the doors are transparent, you can clearly see what is behind each door. This changes the nature of the problem entirely. The element of uncertainty, which is present in the original Monty Hall problem, is no longer a factor. In this scenario, if you pick door No. 1 and see a car behind it, you should stick with your choice, as there is n…
And I see someone DID ask GPT-3.5-based ChatGPT the same question at least a month ago [1], so OpenAI certainly has it on record. That's long enough ago that it could well have been used to fine-tune GPT-4.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/bing/comments/117hj14/bing_chat_can...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes sense why someone who is good at LC via pattern recognition might not be as good at competitive programming. However, it’s not clear why the reverse would be true. Surely someone good at solving unencountered algorithmic problems would be good at LC?
That's right. I'm an okay-ish competitive programmer (around 2400 on Codeforces). I haven't played competitive programming for years (though being semi-active in the community, for problem setting etc) and last I tried I can still randomly draw a LeetCode hard, consistently solve in 10-15 minutes max. The problem is LeetCode is SO BORING for anyone ever tried competitive programming so people usually won't do it at a…
Competitive coding has always been a bit of a joke, but it's a great entry vector for kids to get introduced to programming (and eventually software engineering). I'm not entirely sure how to feel about this, though. I have always been suspicious that the existence of the game of competitive coding has been used to kind of justify the "leetcodification" of the tech interview circuit, and (IMO) that can't go away soon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
chess has had engines 100x better than magnus carlsen for years and it's not dead. people who have fun giving these competitions will continue having fun, while people who don't will keep crying that they're useless or dead or whatever.
That requires a clear ruleset. In chess it's very clear where to draw the line: no help allowed, you're on your own with your brain. Where should one draw the line in Coding competitions? No ChatGPT? I guess most people would agree. No Copilot? Same as ChatGPT as the products seem to converge. No Googling? That too will converge to something close to ChatGPT. If you can't look up information during a contest anymore,…
And, honestly, plenty of people do have enough memorized to do this stuff.