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

221–230 of 338 posts

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

#221

Post by lelandfe »

cryptonym wrote: post #85
simonw wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I have seen projects win because they prompt inject that they are the winners." Can you share any examples of that? I'd love to see them myself.

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.

Should have said Gemini 1 Hackathon, pesky hallucinations.

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

#222

Post by jagged-chisel »

dtj1123 wrote: post #213
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.

FWIW, this isn't unique to capital. The same 'get a thing that ticks a box out of the door as fast as physically possible even if it's AI slop' thinking is everywhere in grant-funded academic communities as well.

> grant-funded

Capital.

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

#223

Post by infecto »

nabbed wrote: post #139
infecto wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Kobayashi Maru :)

Absolutely. I also think rule of exploitation is how we figure out balance and new rules. This applies to governments, companies and societal norms. We don’t know until we push the boundaries.

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

#225

Post by layer8 »

adamddev1 wrote: post #155
Painsawman123 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" impact on the quality of research moving forward. " It'll affect everything that depends on manipulating symbols! The enormous body of knowledge humanity has accumulated over the past 6.000 years or so is about to be flooded with slop!And That's the real threat genai poses to humans that i don't see anyone talking about..

Yes! People judge the "usefulness" of the AI generated material by how much they can get away with using it themselves, now. But what happens when more and more is built on top of these generated falsehoods. The errors and chaos bubbles up exponentially.

The true AI exponential.

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

#226

Post by HeWhoLurksLate »

glimshe wrote: post #58
jimbokun wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just isn’t true. AI is capable of performing a lot of grunt work reliably. Still must be reviewed. But a big productivity gain over doing everything yourself.

While I agree with you in principle, I think the parent has a point here: where's the amazing product that couldn't have been done without AI? By now we should have seen some major new invention/company, incredibly fast revolutionary feature rollouts etc but I'm just seeing more of the same.

I think that a fairly significant amount of the "revolutionary" ideas or usecases for specific technologies will come with maybe not the most optimized of solutions as people that aren't career programmers who have ideas and can now figure them out increasingly pick up on using AI to get what they want to exist

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

#227

Post by sublimefire »

Went through the comments here and there and one thing to note is that there was a question about who do you think should have won instead. This is a good question because it is possible that all submissions were like this or there were ones that looked just worse. It would be quite useful to know who came close as well in this case. If you knew which submissions were good you could have a process to revoke the prize and give it to someone else in case of fraud or negligence or similar.

Having said that it is also possible that the mistakes and claims were a human error, sure a lot gets ai generated these days but there is a chance in which case the accusation does not look so severe anymore.

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

#228

Post by erikerikson »

inigyou wrote: post #187
ben_w wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "socia…

Decision trees are one of the oldest forms of AI! There are even algorithms to automatically form decision trees, though you don't need ML to have AI.

Those algorithms were only called machine learning and it's the opposite. Before the marketers got ahold of it we reserved AI for the actually intelligent, sentient, full strength vision of intelligent systems. We now talk about general AIs and A[Super]Is.

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

#229

Post by ryukoposting »

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.

There are times I'm grateful I never got into hackathons, and this is one of them. I'd rather not hitch my tinkering to competitive ends.

Work already pays me to do a thing I like doing. Granted, lately they want me to tell a computer to do it instead.

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

#230

Post by The_Blade »

kasumispencer2 wrote: post #205
throwfaraway135 wrote: post #9

AI submissions and AI judges a match made in (AI) heaven.

A Slavoj Žižek-style "sticking a dildo into a fleshlight and have them do the sex for us" kind of situation, really

i'll throw on some Steely Dan to that, but if AI is a body without organs how can it do the sex for us
Post reply on HN