OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

Post by bwfan123 » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 5:09 PM UTC

aluminum96 wrote: post #283

bwfan123 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on the past history with frontier-math & AIME 2025 [1],[2] I would not trust announcements which cant be independently verified. I am excited to try it out though. Also, the performance of LLMs on imo 2025 was not even bronze [3]. Finally, this article shows that LLMs were just mostly bluffing [4] on usamo 2025. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1i53ih7/fro ... [2] https://x.com/DimitrisPapai…

The solutions were publicly posted to GitHub: https://github.com/aw31/openai-imo-2025-proofs/tree/main

Post by aluminum96 » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 5:09 PM UTC

blibble wrote: post #135

diggan wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it didn't We kind of have to assume it didn't right? Otherwise bragging about the results makes zero sense and would be outright misleading.

openai have been caught doing exactly this before

Post by aluminum96 » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 5:11 PM UTC

AIPedant wrote: post #41

dylanbyte wrote: post #16

These are high school level only in the sense of assumed background knowledge, they are extremely difficult. Professional mathematicians would not get this level of performance, unless they have a background in IMO themselves. This doesn’t mean that the model is better than them in math, just that mathematicians specialize in extending the frontier of math. The answers are not in the training data. This is not a mode…

It almost certainly is specialized to IMO problems, look at the way it is answering the questions: https://xcancel.com/alexwei_/status/1946477742855532918 E.g here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GwLtrPeWIAUMDYI.png?name=orig Frankly it looks to me like it's using an AlphaProof style system, going between natural language and Lean/etc. Of course OpenAI will not tell us any of this.

Post by mitthrowaway2 » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 5:13 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #124

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…

How is a claim , "clear evidence" to anything?

Post by chvid » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 5:17 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