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

OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 737 posts

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#171

Post by kenjackson »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #140
mikert89 wrote: post #133

The cynicism/denial on HN about AI is exhausting. Half the comments are some weird form of explaining away the ever increasing performance of these models I've been reading this website for probably 15 years, its never been this bad. many threads are completely unreadable, all the actual educated takes are on X, its almost like there was a talent drain

The overconfidence/short sightedness on HN about AI is exhausting. Half the comments are some weird form of explaining how developers will be obsolete in five years and how close we are to AGI.

I went through the thread and saw nothing that looked like this.

I don’t think developers will be obsolete in five years. I don’t think AGI is around the corner. But I do think this is the biggest breakthrough in computer science history.

I worked on accelerating DNNs a little less than a decade ago and had you shown me what we’re seeing now with LLMs I’d say it was closer to 50 years out than 20 years out.

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#172

Post by kelipso »

causal wrote: post #82
zug_zug wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like I've noticed you you making the same comment 12 places in this thread -- incorrectly misrepresenting the difficulty of this tournament and ultimately it comes across as a bitter ex. Here's an example problem 5: Let a1,a2,…,an be distinct positive integers and let M=max⁡1≤i Find the maximum number of pairs (i,j) with 1≤i<j≤n for which (ai +aj )(aj −ai )=M.

What does max⁡1≤i<j≤n mean? Wouldn't M always be j?

Guessing it should be M = max_{⁡1≤i<j≤n} ai+aj or some other function M = max_{⁡1≤i<j≤n} f(ai,aj).

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#173

Post by mikert89 »

kenjackson wrote: post #171
halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overconfidence/short sightedness on HN about AI is exhausting. Half the comments are some weird form of explaining how developers will be obsolete in five years and how close we are to AGI.

I went through the thread and saw nothing that looked like this. I don’t think developers will be obsolete in five years. I don’t think AGI is around the corner. But I do think this is the biggest breakthrough in computer science history. I worked on accelerating DNNs a little less than a decade ago and had you shown me what we’re seeing now with LLMs I’d say it was closer to 50 years out than 20 years out.

its very clearly a major breakthrough for humanity

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#174

Post by halfmatthalfcat »

kenjackson wrote: post #171
halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overconfidence/short sightedness on HN about AI is exhausting. Half the comments are some weird form of explaining how developers will be obsolete in five years and how close we are to AGI.

I went through the thread and saw nothing that looked like this. I don’t think developers will be obsolete in five years. I don’t think AGI is around the corner. But I do think this is the biggest breakthrough in computer science history. I worked on accelerating DNNs a little less than a decade ago and had you shown me what we’re seeing now with LLMs I’d say it was closer to 50 years out than 20 years out.

[flagged]

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#175

Post by halfmatthalfcat »

Aurornis wrote: post #157
halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overconfidence/short sightedness on HN about AI is exhausting. Half the comments are some weird form of explaining how developers will be obsolete in five years and how close we are to AGI.

> Half the comments are some weird form of explaining how developers will be obsolete in five years and how close we are to AGI. I do not see that at all in this comment section. There is a lot of denial and cynicism like the parent comment suggested. The comments trying to dismiss this as just “some high school math problem” are the funniest example.

[flagged]

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#176

Post by samat »

saagarjha wrote: post #40
ktallett wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I did competitive math in high school and I can confidently say that they are anything but "basic". I definitely can't solve them now (as an adult) and it's likely I never will. The same is true for most people, including people who actually pursued math in college (I didn't). I'm not going to be the next guy who unknowingly challenges a Putnam winner to do these but I will just say that it is unlikely that someone w…

Thanks for speaking sense. I think 99% of people saying IMO problems are not hard would not be able to solve basic district-level competition problems and are just not equipped to judge the problems.

And 1% here are those IMO/IOI winners who think everyone is just like them. I grew up with them and to you, my friends, I say: this is the reason why AI would not take over the world (and might even not be that useful for real world tasks), even if it wins every damn contest out there.

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#177

Post by daedrdev »

ktallett wrote: post #38
gametorch wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> high school/early university maths problems should not have been a stretch at all for it This is a ridiculous understatement of the difficulty of getting gold at the IMO.

[flagged]

https://www.imo-official.org/year_info.aspx?year=2025

Take a look.

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#178

Post by emp17344 »

csomar wrote: post #137

The issue is that trust is very hard to build and very easy to lose. Even in today's age where regular humans have a memory span shorter than that of an LLM, OpenAI keeps abusing the public's trust. As a result, I take their word on AI/LLMs about as seriously as I'd take my grocery store clerk's opinion on quantum physics.

I still haven’t forgotten OpenAI’s FrontierMath debacle from December. If they really have some amazing math-solving model, give us more info than a vague twitter hype-post.

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#179

Post by mikert89 »

rvz wrote: post #145
softwaredoug wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because both sides have strong vested interests and it’s next to impossible to find a dispassionate point of view. The Pro AI crowd, VC, tech CEOs etc have strong incentive to claim humans are obsolete. Many tech employees see threats to their jobs and want to poopoo any way AI could be useful or competitive.

Or some can spot a euphoric bubble when they see it with lots of participants who have over-invested in 90% of these so called AI startups that are not frontier labs.

dude we have computers reasoning in english to solve math problems, what are you even talking about

Re: OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

#180

Post by meroes »

Aurornis wrote: post #161
chairhairair wrote: post #77

OpenAI simply can’t be trusted on any benchmarks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42761648

The International Math Olympiad isn’t an AI benchmark. It’s an annual human competition.

They didn’t actually compete.
Post reply on HN