OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025

Post by hnfong » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 5:35 PM UTC

facefactsdamnit wrote: post #264

lordnacho wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These models cannot reason Not trying to be a smarty pants here, but what do we mean by "reason"? Just to make the point, I'm using Claude to help me code right now. In between prompts, I read HN. It does things for me such as coding up new features, looking at the compile and runtime responses, and then correcting the code. All while I sit here and write with you on HN. It gives me feedback like "lock free message…

You raise a far point. These criticisms based on "it's merely X" or "it's not really Y" don't hold water when X and Y are poorly defined. The only thing that should matter is the results they get. And I have a hard time understanding why the thing that is supposed to behave in an intelligent way but often just spew nonsense gets 10x budget increases over and over again. This is bad software. It does not do the thing…

Post by nmca » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 5:36 PM UTC

strangeloops85 wrote: post #239

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…

I assume there was tool use in the fine tuning?

Post by aprilthird2021 » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 5:36 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…

Post by davidclark » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 5:38 PM UTC

sigmoid10 wrote: post #73

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...

While I usually enjoy seeing these discussions, I think they are really pushing the usefulness of bayesian statistics. If one dude says the chance for an outcome is 8% and another says it's 16% and the outcome does occur, they were both pretty wrong, even though it might seem like the one who guessed a few % higher might have had a better belief system. Now if one of them had said 90% while the other said 8% or 16%,…

Post by zer00eyz » Sat, Jul 19, 2025, 5:39 PM UTC

modeless wrote: post #144

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most evidence you have about the world is claims from other people, not direct experiment. There seems to be a thought-terminating cliche here on HN, dismissing any claim from employees of large tech companies. Unlike seemingly most here on HN, I judge people's trustworthiness individually and not solely by the organization they belong to. Noam Brown is a well known researcher in the field and I see no reason to doub…