Please note this Post was just renamed without my involvement from:
Blatant AI slop just won a 25K USD Deepmind Kaggle Grand Prize
into
"Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluate process and selection of winners"
Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
231–240 of 338 posts
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#232I 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)
[deleted]
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#233[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 is extremely useful and 95% USELESS at the same time. LLM based chat AI systems are a poor version of all the things that are AI.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#234I think the heyday of Kaggle is in the past. I would not lose sleep over this site.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
See also: AI PR authors & AI PR reviewers
I would have agreed before seeing Co-Pilot (I was extremely skeptical about its usefulness), but after seeing results, I was wrong. It's actually pretty damn good at code reviewing PRs even when the PR was made entirely by AI. It doesn't seem like it should work, but it does
No... no it doesn't.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#236Please note this Post was just renamed without my involvement from: Blatant AI slop just won a 25K USD Deepmind Kaggle Grand Prize into "Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluate process and selection of winners"
That's because HN doesn't allow editorialised titles, which means injecting your own opinion into the title. The author of the linked article's opinion is still allowed. If you wanted to give your own title you would have to write the article. Even though your title was objectively more correct and useful than the one it's been renamed to.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#237AI 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.
People love offloading their thinking. They offload to tv reporters, to religions to political parties.. Offloading to AI sounds a lot better IMO.
why?
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the time customers buy the thing with the shiniest marketing, and shininess of marketing depends upon features in relation to the competition.
The Xbox 360 was called that instead of the Xbox 2, because it was gonna sit on shelves next to the Playstation 3 and MSFT didn't want consumers to look at "2" next to "3".
Apocryphally but not in reality, the third pound burger failed to compete with the quarter pounder because three is less than four.
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#239Please note this Post was just renamed without my involvement from: Blatant AI slop just won a 25K USD Deepmind Kaggle Grand Prize into "Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluate process and selection of winners"
That's because HN doesn't allow editorialised titles, which means injecting your own opinion into the title. The author of the linked article's opinion is still allowed. If you wanted to give your own title you would have to write the article. Even though your title was objectively more correct and useful than the one it's been renamed to.
They also removed the fact it was a competition hosted by a prestigious AI lab
Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Management is just responding to idiot end-users. I have been on plenty of sales calls where customers ask if features X,Y,Z are available, knowing that there’s a 99% chance they’ll never need them, but they ask anyway just because they’ve heard that someone else used a feature like that at some point in the past. If it’s not, they just assume the software is inferior.
And in B2B or B2G you have customers with checklists of features they don't actually need because the person who wrote the checklist is friends with or paid by a particular supplier, or just operating on old information. That's how you get Windows subsystem for POSIX. Someone in the government had a checklist saying they'd only buy a POSIX compliant operating system, so Microsoft made one. Amusingly, Linux isn't (mos…
Building on standards like POSIX prevents vendor lock-in, which is beneficial in the long run because it prevents the vendor from holding you hostage once you start relying on the system. It's a sensible requirement.
Microsoft's deliberately useless POSIX support is a result of Microsoft acting in bad faith and sabotaging the efforts, as usual, because the lock-in is what they want. Just like they did with OpenDocument, for example. And what they tried to do with Java and the web.