It 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.
Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
21–30 of 338 posts
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#22[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
#23[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.
AI hasn't done anything we couldn't already do. It's just doing it faster and with more mistakes.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#24[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.
However thinking of the long arc is important to, even though it has no consequence for you right now. AI is a force multiplayer and scarily dangerous in the wrong hands. We can already see by these discussions how uncertain things are.
Just food for thought.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#25The attached paper's (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.16009) title is "MEDLEY-BENCH: Scale Buys Evaluation but Not Control in AI Metacognition"
This is the most blatant Claude line, or as Claude would put it, the smoking gun.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#26Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#27[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.
Slightly off topic, but this reminds me of the night family in Rick and Morty.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#28> "Finding 1: Scale Buys Evaluation, Not Control" The attached paper's ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.16009 ) title is "MEDLEY-BENCH: Scale Buys Evaluation but Not Control in AI Metacognition" This is the most blatant Claude line, or as Claude would put it, the smoking gun.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#29It all seems fine from the outside but all the code is generated in all the projects and judging happens via AI, I have seen projects win because they prompt inject that they are the winners.
It used to be about human skill, now it's about ideas and of course insiders are the main winners.