Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

kaggle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 338 posts

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#71

Post by Forgeties79 »

rapidaneurism wrote: post #62
throwatdem12311 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just shame people that give slop. Slop PR? Fix the slop. Slop design? I’m not implementing slop, fix it. Innundated with slop PRs? Send half of them to my super and tell him to deal with it. We’ve fired people that wouldn’t get their shit together. Deadlines are being missed because we need to spend more time fixing slop? That’s a planning (management) problem, not mine. Management are the ones that forced everyone…

What if the slop PRs come from your super?

People don’t typically have to approve and submit their super’s work IME so I’m curious what you mean. If they write you unclear slop emails then constantly bother them for clarification until they fix it.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#74

Post by HPsquared »

quantummagic wrote: post #52
jagged-chisel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to address the underlying causes of people outsourcing their thinking like that. And a big contribution is “move fast.” No one has time to read, process, and think, because The Powers That Be (capital) want their results now.

Pragmatically speaking, a half-assed answer now, is often better than a perfect answer tomorrow.

Something like the time value of money. But on the other hand, a bad answer can have negative value. Although "wrong and early" is better than "wrong and late".

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#77

Post by infecto »

nz wrote: post #63
jagged-chisel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to address the underlying causes of people outsourcing their thinking like that. And a big contribution is “move fast.” No one has time to read, process, and think, because The Powers That Be (capital) want their results now.

With the exception of _one_ company that I worked at, pretty much every[0] company was a struggle between engineering and management. Engineering wants to get the software correct, and management wants to fire-hose features into the market. Most of the time (so more than half, at least), management tends to have a compulsion to mindlessly imitate what other companies/competitors are doing, usually without prioritizat…

It’s a hard balance but in an ideal scenario there would be a good balance of tension between engineering and management/product decision makers. On one hand engineers generally will iterate for far too long and on the other product decision makers will want to birth new features daily.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#78

Post by breezybottom »

Suzuran wrote: post #57
jagged-chisel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to address the underlying causes of people outsourcing their thinking like that. And a big contribution is “move fast.” No one has time to read, process, and think, because The Powers That Be (capital) want their results now.

There is also the "You aren't paid to think, you are paid to do exactly what I tell you, nothing more or less!" school of management. I'm not sure how prevalent this attitude is now but it was very common in the 90s and 2000s. The AI and the bosses that want you to use it all speak from positions of authority and confidence. That's their right, granted to them by their position. You don't speak that way because as a…

So your position is that people actually want to do more work, but their managers are forcing them to work less? I don't buy it.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#79

Post by BoingBoomTschak »

sreekanth850 wrote: post #38
27183 wrote: post #19

What's up with all the AI generated responses on that page?

AI competition, managed BY AI , discussed AI agents and commented by AI users.

Finally, I can unearth the good ol' "The future is so bright I don't need my eyes to see it" meme!

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#80

Post by nekusar »

hoppp wrote: post #29

I don't know about this exact competition but overall fair hackathons have been killed by AI. It 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.

Can't say I agree.

I've participated in a business startup hackathon. Back in 2018, before the LLM era got underway.

I did a hell of a plan, talk, etc.

Who won? 'Uber for ___' won. I forget even what the sell was, but it was basically ignore laws, undercut until leader, kill any competing businesses, jack rates.

Slop has always been in business and business adjacent occupations. Humans also can generate voluminous amounts of crap too. Llms are just faster.

Post reply on HN