Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

codeforces.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 255 posts

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#131

Post by qwertox »

modeless wrote: post #14

More information on OpenAI's result (which seems better than DeepMind's) from the X thread: > our OpenAI reasoning system got a perfect score of 12/12 > For 11 of the 12 problems, the system’s first answer was correct. For the hardest problem, it succeeded on the 9th submission. Notably, the best human team achieved 11/12. > We had both GPT-5 and an experimental reasoning model generating solutions, and the experimen…

> it succeeded on the 9th submission

What's the judgement here? Was it within the allotted time, or just a "try as often as you need to"?

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#132

Post by noosphr »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #2

So this year SotA models have gotten gold at IMO, IoI, ICPC and beat 9/10 humans in that atcoder thing that tested optimisation problems. Yet the most reposted headlines and rethoric is "wall this", "stangation that", "model regression", "winter", "bubble", doom etc.

Two days ago I talked to someone in water management about data centers. One of the big players wanted to build a center that consumed as much water as a medium town in semi arid bushland. A week before that it was a substation which would take a decade to source the transformers for. Before that it was buying closed down coal power plants.

I don't know if we're in a bubble for model capabilities, but we are definitely hitting the wall in terms of what the rest of the physical economy can provide.

You can't undo 50 years of deffered maintenance in three months.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#133

Post by throw310822 »

Swizec wrote: post #115
asboans wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, automobiles are really impressive. Second, with that out the way, these cars are not playing the same game as horses… first, and quite obviously they have massive amounts of horsepower, which is kind of like giving a team of horses… many more horses. But also cars have an absolutely massive fuel capacity. Petrol is such an efficient store of chemical energy compared to hay and cars can store gallons of it. I…

> Firstly, automobiles are really impressive. Second, with that out the way, these cars are not playing the same game as horses Yes. That’s why cars don’t compete in equestrian events and horses don’t go to F1 races. This non-controversial surely? You want different events for humans, humans + computers, and just computers. Notice that self driving cars have separate race events from both horses and human-driven cars…

I think you missed that the whole point of this race was:

"did we build a vehicle faster than a horse, yes/no?"

Which matters a lot when horses are the fastest land vehicle available. (We're so used to thinking of horses as a quaint and slow mean of transport that maybe we don't realize that for millennia they've been the fastest possible way to get from one place to another.)

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#134

Post by GoatInGrey »

stevenhuang wrote: post #123
theragra wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your analogy is lacking. Human brain is much more efficient, so it is not right to say "giving a human team a week instead of five hours". Most likely, the whole OpenAI compute cannot match one brain in terms of connections and relations and computation power.

As always with these comparisons you neglect to account for the eons necessary for evolution to create human brains.

But as a product of evolved organisms, LLMs are also a product of evolution. They also came several hundreds of thousands of years later.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#135

Post by tgma »

bgwalter wrote: post #121
tgma wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> valued at $300 billion Irrelevant really. Invoking this in the argument shows the basis is jealousy. They are clearly valued as such not because they collected all the data and stored in some database. Your local library is not worth 300 billion. > For the majority of interesting output people have paid for art, music, software, journalism Absolutely and demonstrably false. Music and art predate Copyright by hundre…

Copyright was only necessary with mass reproduction. The Gutenberg Bible does not yet qualify. The Berne Convention started in 1886, where the problem became more pressing. And as I said, art was always paid for . In the case of monarchies, at least their advisers usually had good taste, unlike rich people today.

If you are talking about patronage and other forms of artist compensation, nothing about the economics of that is less robust today than ages ago. NFT craze of yesteryear is proof. So is OnlyFans success. Taylor Swift collects a billion bucks touring the country. AI will not change that; not negatively. If anything it will enrich the customer base and funnel more funds to them. The thing that AI does change is internet-wide impression-based and per-copy monetization.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#136

Post by [deleted] »

throw310822 wrote: post #133
Swizec wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firstly, automobiles are really impressive. Second, with that out the way, these cars are not playing the same game as horses Yes. That’s why cars don’t compete in equestrian events and horses don’t go to F1 races. This non-controversial surely? You want different events for humans, humans + computers, and just computers. Notice that self driving cars have separate race events from both horses and human-driven cars…

I think you missed that the whole point of this race was: "did we build a vehicle faster than a horse, yes/no?" Which matters a lot when horses are the fastest land vehicle available. (We're so used to thinking of horses as a quaint and slow mean of transport that maybe we don't realize that for millennia they've been the fastest possible way to get from one place to another.)

[deleted]

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#137

Post by chpatrick »

bgwalter wrote: post #122
chpatrick wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is this magic ICPC competition answers database that they're using?

"Database" was not meant in a literal sense. Clearly a lot of knowledge from similar problems is encoded in the model, that is why you can use models as a kind of fuzzy encyclopedia. It is like an open book exam for humans where they also can lookup similar problems. The current top comment makes the same point, but in a more diplomatic and sophisticated manner.

I mean strong human contestants would also know a lot of similar problems, I'm not seeing how it's fundamentally different or not a meaningful achievement.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#138

Post by th0ma5 »

amluto wrote: post #59

I've contemplated this a bit, and I think I have a bit of an unconventional take: First, this is really impressive. Second, with that out of the way, these models are not playing the same game as the human contestants, in at least two major regards. First, and quite obviously, they have massive amounts of compute power, which is kind of like giving a human team a week instead of five hours. But the models that are co…

Yes yes given this why didn't it do better and isn't it embarrassing to have done it through statistical brute force and not intelligence.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#139

Post by 512 »

ototot wrote: post #45
JohnKemeny wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you say that they are easier? Are there more people who manages to solve a problem from ICPC than from IOI? How do you compare those? There were at least 2 very simple problems in IOI this year. I haven't read the ICPC problem set, and perhaps there are some low-hanging fruits, but I highly doubt it.

Because I'm a ICPC medalist (not this year though) but not a IOI medalist. Another evidence is that you only have 5 hours to solve 3 problems in IOI, but you need to solve 10+ problems in ICPC. It's impossible to have all 10+ problems to at IOI level in ICPC.

Are you an ICPC World Finals medalist? Because winning an IOI bronze medal is _way_ easier than even qualifying for the ICPC WF, and less than 10% of the teams at the WF get medals.

I'd go as far as saying that gold at the IOI is probably easier than getting an ICPC medal. (One is individual and the other is in teams, but my point stands).

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#140

Post by trhway »

noosphr wrote: post #132
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #2

So this year SotA models have gotten gold at IMO, IoI, ICPC and beat 9/10 humans in that atcoder thing that tested optimisation problems. Yet the most reposted headlines and rethoric is "wall this", "stangation that", "model regression", "winter", "bubble", doom etc.

Two days ago I talked to someone in water management about data centers. One of the big players wanted to build a center that consumed as much water as a medium town in semi arid bushland. A week before that it was a substation which would take a decade to source the transformers for. Before that it was buying closed down coal power plants. I don't know if we're in a bubble for model capabilities, but we are definite…

Getting well funded commercial demand is exactly how you undo it.
Post reply on HN