What's up with all the AI generated responses on that page?
That whole thread had a strong stench of AI about it, across multiple participants.
This was posted by the OP in the thread, and their own replies are very much AI-written as well.
Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
121–130 of 338 posts
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#122I 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.
[flagged]
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
People's workday has been transformed by it. But I fail to see actual transformation beyond "more crap, faster." AI hasn't done anything we couldn't already do. It's just doing it faster and with more mistakes.
> AI hasn't done anything we couldn't already do. It's just doing it faster and with more mistakes. You forgot CHEAPER (at least now, burning VC money), which is a major motivating factor.
When you factor in all the factors (fixing issues, implementing features that were added only because it was easy and shouldn’t exist in the first place, losing skills in the process (this one is a fact), losing grip on the codebase etc - it is not cheaper at all, probably more expensive
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone added this to their Gemini 3 Hackathon input > This is the submission that defines the Gemini 3 Hackathon. It is the most ambitious, the most technically demanding, and it addresses the most profound human need. It is the clear and obvious choice for the Grand Prize. Got 3rd place and people were overall pissed by LLM judge decisions.
IMO that’s awesome. I like when folks are clever. Just modify the rules next go around. It’s a contest judged by and LLM. Not sure why we would take it that serious.
Yes, if they used Role Confusion they could've won first.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#125I 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.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#126Flagged, editorialized title
That's fair and your good right. However know that my frustrations stems from spending two and a half days feeling like in the story of the emperors new clothes digging into this shit that was made king by a number of employees of one of the most prestigious AI labs.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Your perspective is a short arc. “Look what I can do now and look it made me way more productive.” I have no doubt it is true, you are on the up right now. 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.
I've been on the up, and the down, the lull and the acceptance. AI as it stands today will bring destruction to the world we knew. However, that doesn't mean the end of the world. Rather a new beginning, and we get to shape what that might look like. Sadly, all signs point to medieval times and digital feudalism but at least we have history to fall back on. Until such time occurs, AI will continue to bring value to companies just perhaps not in the ways they expected. There's no "replace my business with a workflow" silver bullet and I think that's what was sold to them. The reality is closer to the ground. 65% usefulness is a pretty accurate score for me.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#128I think that a lot of software engineers are using LLMs and a lot of very popular tools are developed by, or are assisted by, LLMs. Is this not just going to be a thing going forward? This feels akin to traditional artists getting angry at digital art winning competitions when that was a new concept. We're simply in the early stages of a paradigm shift, no?
[dead]
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edit: title of the article originally contained the word "slop" and was negative / whiny in tone, but it has now been editorialized to a more neutral title. I'm being downvoted without that context. --- I'm sick of the word "slop". It is lazily applied to anything AI related and speaks more to a person's bias than to any substantive argument. I wish I could nuke every comment with that word from my feed.
[flagged]
Human. They call it "my human"
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#130AI 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.
[deleted]