Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gemini with Deep Think achieves gold-medal standard at the IMO

deepmind.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 254 posts

Re: Gemini with Deep Think achieves gold-medal standard at the IMO

#41

Post by ferguess_k »

deanCommie wrote: post #11

From Terence Tao, via mastodon [0]: > It is tempting to view the capability of current AI technology as a singular quantity: either a given task X is within the ability of current tools, or it is not. However, there is in fact a very wide spread in capability (several orders of magnitude) depending on what resources and assistance gives the tool, and how one reports their results. > One can illustrate this with a hum…

This is a fair reply, but TBH I don't think it's going to change much. The upper echelon of the human society has decided to move AI forward rapidly regardless of any consequences. The rest of us can only hold and pray.

Re: Gemini with Deep Think achieves gold-medal standard at the IMO

#42

Post by dortlick »

dvh wrote: post #33
lufenialif2 wrote: post #2

Still no information on the amount of compute needed; would be interested to see a breakdown from Google or OpenAI on what it took to achieve this feat. Something that was hotly debated in the thread with OpenAI's results: "We also provided Gemini with access to a curated corpus of high-quality solutions to mathematics problems, and added some general hints and tips on how to approach IMO problems to its instructions…

Ok but when reported by mass media, which never used SI units and instead uses units like libraries of Congress, or elephants, what kind of unit should media use to compare computational energy of ai vs children?

Kilocalories. A unit of energy that equals 4184 Joules.

Re: Gemini with Deep Think achieves gold-medal standard at the IMO

#43

Post by nicce »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #38
sxp wrote: post #24

Related news: - OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44613840 - "According to a friend, the IMO asked AI companies not to steal the spotlight from kids and to wait a week after the closing ceremony to announce results. OpenAI announced the results BEFORE the closing ceremony. According to a Coordinator on Problem 6, the one problem OpenAI couldn't solve, "the general s…

OpenAI announced their results after the closing ceremony as was requested. https://x.com/polynoamial/status/1947024171860476264?s=46

> as was requested.

They requested week after?

Re: Gemini with Deep Think achieves gold-medal standard at the IMO

#44

Post by antonvs »

dmitrygr wrote: post #34
ekojs wrote: post #25

> Btw as an aside, we didn’t announce on Friday because we respected the IMO Board's original request that all AI labs share their results only after the official results had been verified by independent experts & the students had rightly received the acclamation they deserved > We've now been given permission to share our results and are pleased to have been part of the inaugural cohort to have our model results off…

> Was OpenAI simply not coordinating with the IMO Board then? You are still surprised by sama@'s asinineness? You must be new here.

When your goal is to control as much of the world's money as possible, preferably all of it, then everyone is your enemy, including high school students.

Re: Gemini with Deep Think achieves gold-medal standard at the IMO

#45

Post by modeless »

> AlphaGeometry and AlphaProof required experts to first translate problems from natural language into domain-specific languages, such as Lean, and vice-versa for the proofs. It also took two to three days of computation. This year, our advanced Gemini model operated end-to-end in natural language, producing rigorous mathematical proofs directly from the official problem descriptions

So, the problem wasn't translated to Lean first. But did the model use Lean, or internet search, or a calculator or Python or any other tool during its internal thinking process? OpenAI said theirs didn't, and I'm not sure if this is exactly the same claim. More clarity on this point would be nice.

I would also love to know the rough order of magnitude of the amount of computation used by both systems, measured in dollars. Being able to do it at all is of course impressive, but not useful yet if the price is outrageous. In the absence of disclosure I'm going to assume the price is, in fact, outrageous.

Edit: "No tool use, no internet access" confirmed: https://x.com/FredZhang0/status/1947364744412758305

Re: Gemini with Deep Think achieves gold-medal standard at the IMO

#46

Post by lufenialif2 »

dvh wrote: post #33
lufenialif2 wrote: post #2

Still no information on the amount of compute needed; would be interested to see a breakdown from Google or OpenAI on what it took to achieve this feat. Something that was hotly debated in the thread with OpenAI's results: "We also provided Gemini with access to a curated corpus of high-quality solutions to mathematics problems, and added some general hints and tips on how to approach IMO problems to its instructions…

Ok but when reported by mass media, which never used SI units and instead uses units like libraries of Congress, or elephants, what kind of unit should media use to compare computational energy of ai vs children?

Convert libraries, elephants, etc into SI of course! Otherwise, they aren't really comparable...

Re: Gemini with Deep Think achieves gold-medal standard at the IMO

#47

Post by scotty79 »

deanCommie wrote: post #11

From Terence Tao, via mastodon [0]: > It is tempting to view the capability of current AI technology as a singular quantity: either a given task X is within the ability of current tools, or it is not. However, there is in fact a very wide spread in capability (several orders of magnitude) depending on what resources and assistance gives the tool, and how one reports their results. > One can illustrate this with a hum…

Some of the critique is valid but some of it sounds like, "but the rules of the contest are that participants must use less than x joules of energy obtained from cellular respiration and have a singular consciousness"

I don't think anybody thinks AI was competing fair and within the rules that apply to humans. But if the humans were competing on the terms that AI solved those problems on, near-unlimited access to energy, raw compute and data, still very few humans could solve those problems within a reasonable timeframe. It would take me probably months or years to educate myself sufficiently to even have a chance.

Re: Gemini with Deep Think achieves gold-medal standard at the IMO

#48

Post by mike_d »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #38
sxp wrote: post #24

Related news: - OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44613840 - "According to a friend, the IMO asked AI companies not to steal the spotlight from kids and to wait a week after the closing ceremony to announce results. OpenAI announced the results BEFORE the closing ceremony. According to a Coordinator on Problem 6, the one problem OpenAI couldn't solve, "the general s…

OpenAI announced their results after the closing ceremony as was requested. https://x.com/polynoamial/status/1947024171860476264?s=46

Proposed question for next IMO: "Show a proof that 'after the closing ceremony' and 'one week later' are not the same unit of time"

Re: Gemini with Deep Think achieves gold-medal standard at the IMO

#49

Post by thrance »

dvh wrote: post #33
lufenialif2 wrote: post #2

Still no information on the amount of compute needed; would be interested to see a breakdown from Google or OpenAI on what it took to achieve this feat. Something that was hotly debated in the thread with OpenAI's results: "We also provided Gemini with access to a curated corpus of high-quality solutions to mathematics problems, and added some general hints and tips on how to approach IMO problems to its instructions…

Ok but when reported by mass media, which never used SI units and instead uses units like libraries of Congress, or elephants, what kind of unit should media use to compare computational energy of ai vs children?

If the models that got a gold medal are anything like those used on ARC-AGI, then you can bet they wrote an insane amount of text trying to reason their ways through these problems. Like, several bookshelves worth of writings.

So funnily enough, "the AI wrote x times the library of Congress to get there" is good enough of a comparison.

Re: Gemini with Deep Think achieves gold-medal standard at the IMO

#50

Post by sherburt3 »

sxp wrote: post #24

Related news: - OpenAI claims gold-medal performance at IMO 2025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44613840 - "According to a friend, the IMO asked AI companies not to steal the spotlight from kids and to wait a week after the closing ceremony to announce results. OpenAI announced the results BEFORE the closing ceremony. According to a Coordinator on Problem 6, the one problem OpenAI couldn't solve, "the general s…

What a great metaphor for AI. Taking an event that is a celebration of high school kids' knowledge and abilities and turning it into a marketing stunt for their frankenstein monster that they are building to make all the kids' hard work worth nothing.
Post reply on HN