Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners • Hacker News Board

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

#331

Post by ryukoposting » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 2:01 PM UTC

twerkmeister wrote: post #245

ryukoposting wrote: post #214

I thought Kaggle was a website where you download dubious CSV files of annualized bean consumption in Bolivia, or whatever. Was Kaggle ever a reputable source of original research, or a source of anything with any provenance at all? That would be news to me. The fact that 25 grand was involved this time is unique, I guess.

They also host the arc prize challenge with prices up to 850k https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/arc-prize-2026-arc-agi-3...

Claude, write me a 1500-word lottery ticket with some charts.

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

#332

Post by onesandofgrain » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 4:03 PM UTC

twerkmeister wrote: post #231

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"

HN is paid by openai so makes sense.

No AI-negative posts on HN please lol.

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

#333

Post by dtj1123 » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 4:31 PM UTC

jagged-chisel wrote: post #222

dtj1123 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's the distinction between capital and money?

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

#334

Post by gchamonlive » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 4:53 PM UTC

inigyou wrote: post #322

dymk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a nice thought, but it’s probably not true as the AI becomes integrated into standard hiring tools

Yep. Looking for a job right now. There are very few workplaces that don't do this.

Sorry to hear that

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

#335

Post by oguzkaanmavice » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 5:53 PM UTC

Lomlioto wrote: post #32

onesandofgrain wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Someone might want to downvote you because you just state something which is very controversal and you do not add any arguments to your 'empty' comment. Its hard to even have a discussion because someone else needs to give you enough content like ask you first why do you even think that. So how do you define AI? LLMs? GenAI stuff? What is 95%? Does it mean that these 5% are unable to disrupt industries or does it mea…

[flagged]

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

#336

Post by gtowey » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 5:55 PM UTC

jagged-chisel wrote: post #37

ecshafer wrote: post #31

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.

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.

It's because those things not only take more time, it's that the number of people who are really good at it are few and far between. That gives those employees leverage.

Employers are trying to turn all workers everywhere in every industry into completely fungible atomatons. This maximises the candidate pool and drives wages to a minimum. Employees who demand humane working conditions can be canned and replaced with someone more desperate.

In their ideal world we would basically bring back feudalism.

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

#337

Post by glimshe » Sun, Jul 19, 2026, 6:45 PM UTC

reactordev wrote: post #311

glimshe wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Visicalc was released 2 years after the Apple II was released. Visicalc changed the world for the better faster than AI has up to this point.

Anthropic released Claude in March 2023. Claude Code was released in February 2025. I'd say Claude Code had about as much impact as Visicalc.

But Claude Code is the apple II in my analogy. Where's the revolutionary product made with AI coding, or the company that couldn't exist without vibe coding?

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

#338

Post by bryan_specgit » Mon, Jul 20, 2026, 2:32 AM UTC

chasd00 wrote: post #142

patrickmay wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "passing glance" is nowhere near good enough. Just as software developers must be held accountable for every line of code they check in, product managers must be held accountable for every word in their PRDs. LLMs can speed up some parts of the design and delivery process but humans still bear responsibility.

i meant "passing glance" at the _very very least_ where anything > 0 is so much better than 0. I have people just blindly offloading pretty important analysis to LLM without any review whatsoever and it's super annoying and counter productive resulting in a lot of rework. I've covered refinement with developers trying to meet AC that make no sense. Many times i've just deleted parts of AC (which is a no-no where i li…

Yes, have been sent many .MD files that clearly the prompter (too generous to call them authors) didn't read and expect you to read for them. And too many examples of asking a follow up question only for them to just paste my question to their LLM and send another .MD. Total PM malpractice with AI. No tooling will completely fix bad PMs.