Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

twitter.com

271–280 of 737 posts

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#271

The cynicism/denial on HN about AI is exhausting. Half the comments are some weird form of explaining away the ever increasing performance of these models I've been reading this website for probably 15 years, its never been this bad. many threads are completely unreadable, all the actual educated takes are on X, its almost like there was a talent drain

Basically this. Not sure why people here love to doubt AI progress as it clearly makes strides

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#272
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've been reading this website for probably 15 years, its never been this bad... all the actual educated takes are on X Almost every technical comment on HN is wrong (see for example essentially all the discussion of Rust async, in which people keep making up silly claims that Rust maintainers then attempt to patiently explain are wrong). The idea that the "educated" takes are on X though... that's crazy talk.

With regard to AI & LLMs Twitter/x is actually the only place with all of the industry people discussing. There are a bunch of great accounts to follow that are only really posting content to x. Karpathy, nearcyan, kalomaze, all of the OpenAI researchers including the link this discussion is on, many anthropic researchers. It's such a meme that you see people discuss reading Twitter thread + paper because the thread…

I see the same effect regarding macroeconomic discussions. Great content on X that is head and shoulders (says me) above discussions on other platforms.

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#274

The cynicism/denial on HN about AI is exhausting. Half the comments are some weird form of explaining away the ever increasing performance of these models I've been reading this website for probably 15 years, its never been this bad. many threads are completely unreadable, all the actual educated takes are on X, its almost like there was a talent drain

Its because hackers are fed up of being conned by corporations that steal our code, ideas, data. They start out "open" only to rug pull. "Pissing in the pool of opensource".

As hackers we have more responsibility than the general public because we understand the tech and its side effects, we are the first line of defense so it is important to speak out not only to be on the right side of history but also to protect society.

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#275
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've been reading this website for probably 15 years, its never been this bad... all the actual educated takes are on X Almost every technical comment on HN is wrong (see for example essentially all the discussion of Rust async, in which people keep making up silly claims that Rust maintainers then attempt to patiently explain are wrong). The idea that the "educated" takes are on X though... that's crazy talk.

With regard to AI & LLMs Twitter/x is actually the only place with all of the industry people discussing. There are a bunch of great accounts to follow that are only really posting content to x. Karpathy, nearcyan, kalomaze, all of the OpenAI researchers including the link this discussion is on, many anthropic researchers. It's such a meme that you see people discuss reading Twitter thread + paper because the thread…

Yup! People here are great hackers but it’s almost like they have their head up their own ass when it comes to AI/ML.

Most of HN was very wrong about LLMs.

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that less exciting? A machine competing in an unconstrained natural language difficult math contest and coming out on top by any means is breath taking science fiction a few years ago - now it’s not exciting? Regardless of the tools for verification or even solvers - why is the goal post moving so fast? There is no bonus for “purity of essence” and using only neural networks. We live in an era where it’s hard…

>> Why is that less exciting? A machine competing in an unconstrained natural language difficult math contest and coming out on top by any means is breath taking science fiction a few years ago - now it’s not exciting? Half the internet is convinced that LLMs are a big data cheating machine and if they're right then, yes, boldly cheating where nobody has cheated before is not that exciting.

I don't get it, how do you "big data cheat" an AI into solving previously unencountered problems? Wouldn't that just be engineering?

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#278

The cynicism/denial on HN about AI is exhausting. Half the comments are some weird form of explaining away the ever increasing performance of these models I've been reading this website for probably 15 years, its never been this bad. many threads are completely unreadable, all the actual educated takes are on X, its almost like there was a talent drain

Based on the past history with frontier-math & AIME 2025 [1],[2] I would not trust announcements which cant be independently verified. I am excited to try it out though.

Also, the performance of LLMs on imo 2025 was not even bronze [3].

Finally, this article shows that LLMs were just mostly bluffing [4] on usamo 2025.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1i53ih7/fro...

[2] https://x.com/DimitrisPapail/status/1888325914603516214

[3] https://matharena.ai/imo/

[4] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.21934

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#279

Noam Brown: > this isn’t an IMO-specific model. It’s a reasoning LLM that incorporates new experimental general-purpose techniques. > it’s also more efficient [than o1 or o3] with its thinking. And there’s a lot of room to push the test-time compute and efficiency further. > As fast as recent AI progress has been, I fully expect the trend to continue. Importantly, I think we’re close to AI substantially contributing…

> it’s also more efficient [than o1 or o3] with its thinking.

"So under his saturate response, he never loses. For her to win, must make him unable at some even -> would need Q_{even-1}>even, i.e. some a_j> sqrt2. but we just showed always a_jWhy use lot word when few word do trick?

1. https://github.com/aw31/openai-imo-2025-proofs/blob/main/pro...

Post reply on HN