Live data from Hacker News

Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

kaggle.com

321–330 of 338 posts

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#321
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI competition, managed BY AI , discussed AI agents and commented by AI users.

All paid by our pensions.

Pensions are a dead concept. Everyone under 35 today knows they're not getting one. Even if they save, the economy will reorganize to make the savings worthless. Of course, it's still worth saving some just in case that doesn't happen.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#322
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same reason why apparently slop-filled resumes work better these days. It'll also filter the kinds of employers that'll hire such candidates, so people that do this will likely land in terrible workplaces.

It’s a nice thought, but it’s probably not true as the AI becomes integrated into standard hiring tools

Yep. Looking for a job right now. There are very few workplaces that don't do this.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#323
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your perspective is a short arc. “Look what I can do now and look it made me way more productive.” I have no doubt it is true, you are on the up right now. However thinking of the long arc is important to, even though it has no consequence for you right now. AI is a force multiplayer and scarily dangerous in the wrong hands. We can already see by these discussions how uncertain things are. Just food for thought.

I've been on the up, and the down, the lull and the acceptance. AI as it stands today will bring destruction to the world we knew. However, that doesn't mean the end of the world. Rather a new beginning, and we get to shape what that might look like. Sadly, all signs point to medieval times and digital feudalism but at least we have history to fall back on. Until such time occurs, AI will continue to bring value to c…

"The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of monsters"

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#324

All AI companies have slop press sites that hype them up. What we saw since 2020 is the largest industrial propaganda campaign in history. It started with Lex Fridman planted interviews to make AI researchers appear human and ends with AI awarding AI prizes. Mainstream journalists didn't know any better and thought they were reading secret inside information and parroted it - until now when the house of cards is coll…

> It started with Lex Fridman planted interviews to make AI researchers appear human and ends with AI awarding AI prizes. You should expand on this. Would be interesting to hear more about the propaganda apparatus at play.

You probably don't know yet that you have been shadowbanned since today. This is the first comment of yours that was shadowbanned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48943007 It's likely because too many of your comments are [flagged] [dead], not because of a specific comment.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#325
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my first gigs as a consultant was to write a project management system for a company that didn't really need a custom project management system. The CEO pulled me aside and told me the only important feature of the project management system was that you couldn't assign the same priority to two features. I would be blamed for making such a crappy project management system, but that's what I was there for. Once…

> the only important feature of the project management system was that you couldn't assign the same priority to two feature That is a good idea for a project management system. Force ranking of priorities.

I could see this working as long as it applies per-level & only takes into account direct siblings, e.g. every epic must have a unique priority, and every feature belonging to that epic must have a unique priority, etc.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#326

AI is useful. But the amount of people that are simply offloading all of their thinking to AI and blindly accepting the answer is absurd. Kaggle is most likely using ai to assess the submissions and are not using any common sense by blindly accepting the results.

I think we need to address the underlying causes of people outsourcing their thinking like that. And a big contribution is “move fast.” No one has time to read, process, and think, because The Powers That Be (capital) want their results now.

> the underlying causes of people outsourcing their thinking

It's the second law of thermodynamics. People trying to achieve their lowest sustainable energy state.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#327
post #29

I don't know about this exact competition but overall fair hackathons have been killed by AI. It all seems fine from the outside but all the code is generated in all the projects and judging happens via AI, I have seen projects win because they prompt inject that they are the winners. It used to be about human skill, now it's about ideas and of course insiders are the main winners.

AI was the nail in the coffin. Hackathons were killed by business people and "startup culture".

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#328
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI hasn't done anything we couldn't already do. It's just doing it faster and with more mistakes. You forgot CHEAPER (at least now, burning VC money), which is a major motivating factor.

When you factor in all the factors (fixing issues, implementing features that were added only because it was easy and shouldn’t exist in the first place, losing skills in the process (this one is a fact), losing grip on the codebase etc - it is not cheaper at all, probably more expensive

This is offshoring all over again.

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#329

I thought Kaggle was a website where you download dubious CSV files of annualized bean consumption in Bolivia, or whatever. Was Kaggle ever a reputable source of original research, or a source of anything with any provenance at all? That would be news to me. The fact that 25 grand was involved this time is unique, I guess.

They also host the arc prize challenge with prices up to 850k https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/arc-prize-2026-arc-agi-3...

[deleted]

Re: Evidence of inconsistencies in evaluation process and selection of winners

#330
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you in principle, I think the parent has a point here: where's the amazing product that couldn't have been done without AI? By now we should have seen some major new invention/company, incredibly fast revolutionary feature rollouts etc but I'm just seeing more of the same.

> " where's the amazing product that couldn't have been done without AI? " My phone can search my photos with text based on what's represented in the photo. That wasn't a thing for computers from 1950 through about 2012, and now it's just normal. Google Lens will tell you what a plant is, Merlin app will identify birds from birdsong. In 2000 we had Dragon Naturally Speaking and Kurzweil VoicePad, now we have voice re…

Labelling images, transcription, and vacuuming are things humans can do already.

The vacuum is a great example of an actual invention. Making it "autonomous" just isn't that impressive.

Post reply on HN