Live data from Hacker News

DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

codeforces.com

231–240 of 255 posts

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to play that game, let's compute how much energy was spent to grow, house and educate one team since they were born, over 20 years against how much was spent training the model.

a human being uses about 1 gWh in a lifetime on average. Training one model nowadays uses more than that. So the model also cost more to train than to raise a team member (possibly all three of them)

whoops, got the numbers wrong. 1gWh is how much electricity a person uses, not how much energy the body consumes.

That works out to about 72 years365 days2000 kcal = approx 61 gWh

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#232
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a clear difference between what OpenAI manages to do with GPT-5 and what I manage to do with GPT-5. The other day I asked for code to generate a linear regression and it gave back a figure of some points and a line through it. If GPT-5, as claimed, is able to solve all problems in ICPC, please give the instructions on how I can reproduce it.

Yeah, until OpenAI says "we pasted the questions from ICPC into chatgpt.com and it scored 12/12" the average user isn't really going to be able to reproduce their results.

The average user will never need to answer ICPC questions though.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"?

It was within the allotted time. If I'm reading the scoreboard correctly [edit: I wasn't], the human teams typically submitted dozens or hundreds of attempts at each problem.

The way the rules work is that you can submit as often as you want. Team with the most solved problem wins. The time it took to solve all the problems is the tiebreaker.

But submitting a non-working solution gives you a time penalty (usually 20 mins). Yet this time penalty only applies if in the end, you actually solve the problem. So it never hurts to try.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#234

I went to ICPC's web pages, downloaded the first problem (problem A) and gave it to GPT-5, asking it for code to solve it (stating it was a problem from a recent competitive programming contest). It thought for 7m 53s and gave as reply # placeholder # (No solution provided)

If you want to see some example solutions (not yet validated via official judging): https://github.com/iGentAI/icpc-maestro-solutions-2025

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#235
post #15

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.

Even Sam Altman himself thinks we’re in a bubble, and he ought to have a good sense of the wind direction here. I think the contradiction here can be reconciled by how these tests don’t tend to run on the typical hardware constraints they need to be able do this at scale. And herein lies a large part of the problem as far as I can tell; in late 2024, OpenAI realized they had to rethink GPT-5 since their first attempt…

Sam Altman proclaiming we are in a bubble benefits him. It lowers the price of potential targets for acquisitions. I bet you didnt think of that did you?

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#236
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, until OpenAI says "we pasted the questions from ICPC into chatgpt.com and it scored 12/12" the average user isn't really going to be able to reproduce their results.

The average user will never need to answer ICPC questions though.

No, but the average users have things they want to do that require ICPC level problem solutions. Like making optimized games etc, average users wants that for sure.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Counterpoint: in my consulting role, I've directly seen well over a billion dollars in failed AI deployments in enterprise environments. They're good at solving narrow problems, but fall apart in problem spaces exceeding roughly thirty concurrent decision points. Just today I got involved in a client's data migration where the agent (Claude) processed test data instead of the intended data identified in the prompt. I…

Using LLMs in many cases is a crypto-fad bubble, and people are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. There are a ton of grifters and twits, as well.

There's the AI industry, which you engaged with, which is more or less a flailing attempt to capitalize on the new technology, and which yields some results but has seen quite a staggering number of flops.

There's also the AI technology - progress in AI is on an exponential trend, tied to Moore's law, and has trillions of dollars of impetus in play, nearly completely decoupled from the market in general - I think we'll see at least a decade of progress increasingly accelerating, with massive world models and language models built on current architectures, but from a technical point of view, I believe we're only a couple breakthroughs from getting a truly general architecture.

The worst case scenario for AI is having to wait on sensor technologies and scans of the human brain. At some point, we will have a good enough, explicable, and analyzed model of human neural function and connectomes to create AI models that operate in the same way that the brain processes information.

We're probably 20 years or less from that point - the reason I say this is because of the fact that nearly all brain tissue is generalized - you don't have one type of mechanism for sight, another for thinking, another for feeling happy, another for remembering things - it all runs on the same basic substrate. Every time we map out a cubic millimeter of tissue, we're making progress towards understanding the algorithms by which we experience and process the world.

On the software, side, though, I suspect we're within a few years - one person with a profound insight will be able to make the leap between whatever it is that humans do and the way in which some AI model is processing, and put that insight into algorithmic form. There might be multiple insights along the path, but it is undeniable that progress is happening, and that the rate of progress is increasing day by day. AI just might already be capable enough to make that last little leap without human intervention.

We're in brute force territory, with massive ChatGPT and Grok models requiring billions of dollars of infrastructure and systems in place to achieve.

In 20 years, stuff like that will be achievable by an ambitious high school computer lab, or a rich nerd building things for kicks.

You can effectively put all of the text of the internet onto a dozen 2TB microSD cards. Throw in the pirate data sources, like scihub, pirated books, all the text out there, and maybe it'll take 20 of those microSD cards. $5k or less and you can store and own it all.

A phone in 2045 will have compute, throughput, and storage comparable with a state of the art GPU and server today, and we're likely to optimize in the direction of AI hardware between now and then.

The current AI startup bubble is going to collapse, no doubt, because LLMs aren't the right tool for many jobs, and frontier models keep eating the edge cases and niches people are trying to exploit. We'll see it settle into a handful of big labs, but those big labs will continue chugging along.

I'm not betting on stagnation, though, and truly believe we're going to see a handful of breakthroughs that will radically improve the capabilities of AI in the near term.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#238
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…

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…

There's a difference. How much money went into training the computer here Vs the human? If you want to prove that a computer can, at extreme cost and effort, beat a human - sure, it's possible.

But you can also conclude that putting a lot of money and effort pays off. It's more like comparing a horse to a Ferrari that had millions of development costs, has a team of engineers maintaining it, isn't reusable, and just about beats Chestnut. It's a long way until the utility of both is matched.

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "hasn't seen before" is a bit of an overstatement. Sure, the problem is new in the literal sense that it does exist verbatim elsewhere, but arguably, any competition problem is hardly novel: they are all some permutation of problems that exist and have been solved before: pathfinding, optimization, etc. I don't think anyone is pretending to break new scientific ground in 5 hours.

It's not new scientific ground but a machine beating a challenging computer science problem unassisted is a big deal. If they can do that then there are a lot of other challenging things they can do.

Like what exactly? As far as I can tell, the drug discovery is fizzling out, so it's not talked about much. Toxicity, for one, is a big problem, and the AI is not going to tell you whether the new drug it just concocted is suitable for humans or not.

Small model solves an easy problem; big model solves a challenging problem. I wouldn't call those problems; they are more like invented puzzles. Perfect match for the AI marketing department to "solve".

Re: DeepMind and OpenAI win gold at ICPC

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How long does a single thread take to do an attempt? How long do two threads take? I don't want to assume people reading this forum are children.

This doesn't matter. I don't intend to be rude, of course. I believe this doesn't matter at all.
Post reply on HN