OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

Post by userabchn » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 4:21 PM UTC

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

Post by aerhardt » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 4:23 PM UTC

wrsh07 wrote: post #215

sealeck wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

With regard to AI & LLMs Twitter/x is actually the only place with all of the industry people discussing. There are a bunch of great accounts to follow that are only really posting content to x. Karpathy, nearcyan, kalomaze, all of the OpenAI researchers including the link this discussion is on, many anthropic researchers. It's such a meme that you see people discuss reading Twitter thread + paper because the thread…

Post by motoboi » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 4:24 PM UTC

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

Post by Maxious » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 4:27 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #91

z7 wrote: post #9

Some previous predictions: In 2021 Paul Christiano wrote he would update from 30% to "50% chance of hard takeoff" if we saw an IMO gold by 2025. He thought there was an 8% chance of this happening. Eliezer Yudkowsky said "at least 16%". Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sWLLdG6DWJEy3CH7n/imo-challe...

Context? Who are these people and what are these numbers and why shouldn't I assume they're pulled from thin air?

Post by halfmatthalfcat » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 4:28 PM UTC

fouc wrote: post #226

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

you can add an /s to your earlier comment to make it more obvious it was a joke rather than a direct rebuttal that it got taken as