OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

Post by upperhalfplane » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 4:12 PM UTC

crinkly wrote: post #79

parsimo2010 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a professor in a math department (I teach statistics but there is a good complement of actual math PhDs) and there are only about 10% who care about these types of problems and definitely less than half who could get gold on an IMO test even if they didn’t care. They are all outstanding mathematicians, but the IMO type questions are not something that mathematicians can universally solve without preparation. The…

100% agree with this. My second degree is in mathematics. Not only can I probably not do these but they likely aren’t useful to my work so I don’t actually care. I’m not sure an LLM could replace the mathematical side of my work (modelling). Mostly because it’s applied and people don’t know what they are asking for, what is possible or how to do it and all the problems turn out to be quite simple really.

Post by bmau5 » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 4:13 PM UTC

bluecalm wrote: post #190

My view is that it's less impressive than previous go and chess results. Humans are worse at competitive math than at those games, it's still very limited space and well defined problems. They may hype "general purpose" as much as they want but for now it's still the case that AI is super human at well defined limited space tasks and can't achieve performance of a mediocre below average human at simple tasks without…

Post by colinmorelli » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 4:15 PM UTC

littlestymaar wrote: post #10

ktallett wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Which would be impressive if we knew those problems weren't in the training data already. I mean it is quite impressive how language models are able to mobilize the knowledge they have been trained on, especially since they are able to retrieve information from sources that may be formatted very differently, with completely different problem statement sentences, different variable names and so on, and really operate…

Post by scellus » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 4:15 PM UTC

sealeck wrote: post #199

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

> I've been reading this website for probably 15 years, its never been this bad... all the actual educated takes are on X Almost every technical comment on HN is wrong (see for example essentially all the discussion of Rust async, in which people keep making up silly claims that Rust maintainers then attempt to patiently explain are wrong). The idea that the "educated" takes are on X though... that's crazy talk.

Post by strangeloops85 » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 4:16 PM UTC

modeless wrote: post #117

Noam Brown: > this isn’t an IMO-specific model. It’s a reasoning LLM that incorporates new experimental general-purpose techniques. > it’s also more efficient [than o1 or o3] with its thinking. And there’s a lot of room to push the test-time compute and efficiency further. > As fast as recent AI progress has been, I fully expect the trend to continue. Importantly, I think we’re close to AI substantially contributing…