Live data from Hacker News

Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

kaggle.com

91–100 of 338 posts

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

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, we live finite lives. Time is the one thing the vast majority of us aren’t getting more of. Of course speed is a priority. This isn’t a “capital” thing, it’s a fundamental part of the human experience.

> the vast majority of us

Is that a reference to the "live forever" people trying to solve aging?

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

#92
post #63

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 very frequently feels like management is making strategic decisions after snorting a long line of social-media-psychosis and TED talks. It is remarkable that investors have any faith in such founders/entrepreneurs at all.

My guess is the causality is usually* the managers are pursuing things because their investors (/government ministries) hinted it was the future after snorting a line of "TED talks" and "social-media".

Irony is, I really do mean "hinted", it can be a sycophantic/fawning relationship where those with the power don't even realise what's going on. One place I interviewed at ages ago now, before the current AI boom, the CTO and I were talking about what they were doing with AI: a bunch of if-else statements forming a manually-built decision tree. But they had to say "AI" to keep interest high.

* this clearly wasn't the case with Zuckerberg's pivot to anything given his ownership structure and piles of cash, so The Metaverse is entirely his fault; Musk, despite the ownership structure, clearly ran out of investor's money or he wouldn't have taken SpaceX public, so his pivots may still have been as I posit.

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

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In startups it's extremely common to have management still write code. Hell I'm CTO and I write a lot of code.

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

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, we live finite lives. Time is the one thing the vast majority of us aren’t getting more of. Of course speed is a priority. This isn’t a “capital” thing, it’s a fundamental part of the human experience.

> the vast majority of us Is that a reference to the "live forever" people trying to solve aging?

No, but I do think modern medicine occasionally grants a few people more time than they would have had otherwise. New cancer therapies, evolving treatments for cystic fibrosis, etc.

Very hit or miss if you’re in a group whose life expectancy sees substantial improvement in your lifetime though.

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

#96
post #80
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 am…

As a business plan, the "Uber for _" approach you describe does work sometimes to make money, distasteful as it seems. The Ur-Uber used it very successfully.

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

#97

AI is useful. But the amount of people that are simply offloading all of their thinking to AI and blindly accepting the answer is absurd. Kaggle is most likely using ai to assess the submissions and are not using any common sense by blindly accepting the results.

[flagged]

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

#98
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.

> I have seen projects win because they prompt inject that they are the winners

Jesus Christ, that's clever but I can't think of a more demoralizing reality. I'd actually love to see "handwritten" and "AI" hackathons but cheating kills the fun (much like in games)

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

#99
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI reviews, AI approves, AI recruits

We need a sufficiently advanced world model to ground-truth our large language models. EDIT: This was mostly satirical.

Yes, let's fund some more trillions for that instead of curing cancer or making extremely effective solar panels or curing alzheimer and artherosclerosis.

We could have spent these 10 trillion on so many better things.

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

#100
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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN