Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
1–10 of 338 posts
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#2[deleted]
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#3[flagged]
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#4It’s a shame that Arvix (and once thoughtful places like Kaggle) are used for self-promotion.
I get people want to work at an AI lab but slopping it in public in this manner is counterproductive to the original intended purpose of these places.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#5It was probably scored by AI too. Same reason why slop-filled resumes apparently work better these days.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#6It was probably scored by AI too. Same reason why slop-filled resumes apparently work better these days.
AI reviews, AI approves, AI recruits
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#7It was probably scored by AI too. Same reason why slop-filled resumes apparently work better these days.
> Same reason why apparently slop-filled resumes work better these days.
It'll also filter the kinds of employers that'll hire such candidates, so people that do this will likely land in terrible workplaces.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#8[flagged]
AI is extremely useful, we just haven’t zeroed in on your specific use cases yet. Robotics has been transformed by it, IT and tech has been transformed by it. Finance and Legal have been transformed by it. To say it’s 95% useless is a personal bias.
To me it’s 65% useful. As it can run in the background doing “chores” while I sleep.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#9AI submissions and AI judges a match made in (AI) heaven.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#10LLM-as-a-judge?
Given that LLMs are trained with RL && LLM-as-a-judge, is it really cheating if real competitions use the same?
Maybe the real alignment is the slop we decoded along the way