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

191–200 of 255 posts

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#191

Post by raspasov »

levocardia wrote: post #188
raspasov wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Dealing with the problems of a real-world legacy code base is the exact opposite of a perfectly constrained problem, verified for internal consistency probably by computers and humans, of all things, and presented neatly in a single PDF. There are dozens, if not 100s, of assumptions that humans are going to make while solving a problem (i.e., make sure you don't crash the website on your first day at work!) tha…

>Waymo cars are still being supervised by human drivers nearly 100% of the time That seems...highly implausible?

I mean that a human is ready to jump in at any point an "exception" happens.

Example: During parking, which I witness daily in my building, it happens all the time.

1. Car gets stuck trying to park, blocking either the garage or a whole SF street 2. A human intervenes, either in person (most often) or seemingly remotely, to get the car unstuck.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#192

Post by ragequittah »

dddgghhbbfblk wrote: post #175
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…

I think that's because the framing around this (and similar stories about eg IMO performances) is imo slightly wrong. It's not interesting that they can get a gold medal in the sense of trying to rank them against human competitors. As you say, the direct comparisons are, while not entirely meaningless, at least very hard to interpret in the best of cases. It's very much an apples to oranges situation. Rather, the im…

It feels like half of the people I see talk about AI are still under the impression it's a spicy autocomplete. If you use a SOTA model for a week and still feel this way your bias must be very strong.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#193

Post by ferguess_k »

observationist wrote: post #55
tgma wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the AI hate? How is it different from sharing your knowledge with another individual or writing a book to share it? > AI companies are not paying anyone for that piece of information So? For the vast majority of human existence, paying for content was not a thing, just like paying for air isn't. The copyright model you are used to may just be too forced. Many countries have no moral qualms about "pirating" Window…

These vigorously held and loudly proclaimed opinions don't matter. Don't waste the mental energy. They're more interested in performative ignorance and argument than anything productive. It's somewhere between trying to engage Luddites during the industrial revolution and having a reasonable discussion with /pol/ . They'd rather cling to what they know than embrace change, or get in rhetorical zingers, and nothing wi…

I agree with you. People like me are revisionists. Corporations and States are already rushing to build the most advanced AI, and advancement can be measured in months. We crossed the Rubicon many years ago.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#194

Post by ferguess_k »

Davidzheng wrote: post #56
ferguess_k wrote: post #25

I think in the future information will be more walled -- because AI companies are not paying anyone for that piece of information, and I encourage everyone to put their knowledge on their own website, and for each page, put up a few urls that humans won't be able to find (but can still click if he knows where to find), but can be crawled by AI, which link to pages containing falsified information (such as, oh the inf…

I for one welcome advancement of science and mathematics from our AI overlords

Ah, then we will enter a true dark age.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#195

Post by exclipy »

thrwaway55 wrote: post #181
in-silico wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that up until now, humans were the best at these competitions, just like horses were the best at racing up until cars came around. The other commenter is pointing out how ridiculous it would be for someone to downplay the performance of cars because they did it differently from horses. It doesn't matter if they did it using different methods, that fact that the final outcome was better had world-changing…

I feel the main difference is cars can't compress time in the way an array of computers can. I could win this competition with an infinitely parallel array of random characters typed by infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters instantly since one of them would be perfectly right given infinite submissions. When I make my tweet I would pick a single monkey cus I need infinite money to feed my infinite workforce and th…

In what way did the computer compress time? It completed it in 5 hours and I'm pretty sure they didn't invent a time machine

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#196

Post by nofriend »

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.

Where these competitions differ from real life is that evaluating a solution is much easier than generating a solution. We're at the point where AI can do a pretty good job of evaluating solutions, which is definitely an impressive step. We're also at the point where AI can generate candidate solutions to problems like these, which is also impressive. But the degree to which that translates to practical utility is questionable.

The sibling commenter compared this to go, but we could go back to comparing it with chess. Deepblue didn't play chess the way a human did. It deployed massive amounts of compute, to look at as many future board states as possible, in order to see which move would work out. People who said that a computer that could play chess as well as a human would be as smart as a human ended up eating crow. These modern AIs are also not playing these competitions the way a human does. Comparing their intelligence to that of a humans is similarly fallacious.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#197

Post by sinuhe69 »

I wonder whether they allowed humans input for the AI besides the initial generic prompt? Could they provide guidance for the AI?

We all know that by this kind of problems, intuition/guiding principles to transform the problem is all you need. The human may not be fast enough or error-free to sample correctly the already restricted solution space, but machine can. And for them, it’s a huge advantage. So did they allow human input (as part of a centaur team!) input or not?

These AI teams often have one of the best (ex-) competitive programmers.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#198

Post by dddgghhbbfblk »

ragequittah wrote: post #192
dddgghhbbfblk wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's because the framing around this (and similar stories about eg IMO performances) is imo slightly wrong. It's not interesting that they can get a gold medal in the sense of trying to rank them against human competitors. As you say, the direct comparisons are, while not entirely meaningless, at least very hard to interpret in the best of cases. It's very much an apples to oranges situation. Rather, the im…

It feels like half of the people I see talk about AI are still under the impression it's a spicy autocomplete. If you use a SOTA model for a week and still feel this way your bias must be very strong.

I must be missing something because I don't understand how this is related to my comment.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#199

Post by Vegenoid »

While very cool, this feels like another instance of the kind of thing that we already know they are good at: self-contained, perfectly-specified problems that can be done by humans in a short timespan (especially when a team of highly skilled engineers behind the model is wielding it). Yes, it's amazing that a computer can do this, consider what they could do 10 years ago to today, so on and so on - but I don't see this and go "holy shit", I see this and go "yep".

I wish they went into more detail about how exactly the interaction with the LLM works - I'm pretty sure there's significantly more to it than "drop the paper with the problems into a text box and hit go".

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#200

Post by Vegenoid »

furyofantares wrote: post #168
krisoft wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what happened was the companies drove their cars 100 meters and tweeted that they did it faster than the Olympians had run That would be indeed an interesting race around the time cars were invented. Today that would be silly, since everyone knows what cars are capable of, but back then one can imagine a lot more skepticism. Just as there is a ton of skepticism today of what LLMs can achieve. A competition like thi…

You're right, they did limit to 5 hours and, I think, 3 models, which seems analogous at least. Not enough to say they "won gold". Just say what actually happened! The tweets themselves do, but then we have this clickbait headline here on HN somehow that says they "won gold at ICPC".

Agreed. The linked messaging is much more clear: "achieved gold-medal level performance". This clearly separates them from competing against humans, which they didn't do, because their constraints are very different. The "AI wins gold at ICPC" line really does seem designed to rile people up.
Post reply on HN