41–50 of 255 posts
So this year SotA models have gotten gold at IMO, IoI, ICPC and beat 9/10 humans in that atcoder thing that tested optimisation problems. Yet the most reposted headlines and rethoric is "wall this", "stangation that", "model regression", "winter", "bubble", doom etc.
The last time I asked for a code review from AI was last week. It added (hallucinated) some extra lines to the code and then marked them as buggy. Yes, it beats humans at coding — great!
I went to ICPC's web pages, downloaded the first problem (problem A) and gave it to GPT-5, asking it for code to solve it (stating it was a problem from a recent competitive programming contest). It thought for 7m 53s and gave as reply # placeholder # (No solution provided)
Given that ICPC problems are in general easier than IOI problems. I wouldn't be surprise to see they can get Gold (even perfect scores) in ICPC. Nonetheless, I'm still questioning what's the cost and how long it would take for us to be able to access these models. Still great work, but it's less useful if the cost is actually higher than hiring someone with the same level.
Not sure by what metric you compare the difficulty, but regardless of the hardness of the problem, IIRC, ICPC requires 100% correctness on test cases to score a problem (even failing one means you don't get the score,) but IOI would admit fractional scores (correct me if I am wrong.)
For fractional scores, it depends on problems. In short, there are two types of problems in IOI. One is traditional problems that requires 100% correctness, and the other is continuous scoring.
The prior can still results in score between 0 and 100, but this is because there are subtasks in the problem. For example, a graph become a tree or even just a linear sequence. Nonetheless, you still need to ensure your algorithm is correct on all testcases in that subtask in order to get the score of that task.
So this year SotA models have gotten gold at IMO, IoI, ICPC and beat 9/10 humans in that atcoder thing that tested optimisation problems. Yet the most reposted headlines and rethoric is "wall this", "stangation that", "model regression", "winter", "bubble", doom etc.
Given that ICPC problems are in general easier than IOI problems. I wouldn't be surprise to see they can get Gold (even perfect scores) in ICPC. Nonetheless, I'm still questioning what's the cost and how long it would take for us to be able to access these models. Still great work, but it's less useful if the cost is actually higher than hiring someone with the same level.
What makes you say that they are easier? Are there more people who manages to solve a problem from ICPC than from IOI? How do you compare those? There were at least 2 very simple problems in IOI this year. I haven't read the ICPC problem set, and perhaps there are some low-hanging fruits, but I highly doubt it.
Another evidence is that you only have 5 hours to solve 3 problems in IOI, but you need to solve 10+ problems in ICPC. It's impossible to have all 10+ problems to at IOI level in ICPC.
I think in the future information will be more walled -- because AI companies are not paying anyone for that piece of information, and I encourage everyone to put their knowledge on their own website, and for each page, put up a few urls that humans won't be able to find (but can still click if he knows where to find), but can be crawled by AI, which link to pages containing falsified information (such as, oh the inf…
Why the AI hate? How is it different from sharing your knowledge with another individual or writing a book to share it? > AI companies are not paying anyone for that piece of information So? For the vast majority of human existence, paying for content was not a thing, just like paying for air isn't. The copyright model you are used to may just be too forced. Many countries have no moral qualms about "pirating" Window…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why the AI hate? How is it different from sharing your knowledge with another individual or writing a book to share it? > AI companies are not paying anyone for that piece of information So? For the vast majority of human existence, paying for content was not a thing, just like paying for air isn't. The copyright model you are used to may just be too forced. Many countries have no moral qualms about "pirating" Window…
Its different because the AI model will then automate the use of that knowledge, which for most people in this forum is how they make their livelihood. If OpenAI were making robots to replace plumbers, I wouldn't be surprised when plumbers said "we should really stop giving free advice and training to these robots." Its in the worker's best interest to avoid getting undercut by an automated system that can only be bu…
I have received free advice that reduced future need from such actual plumbers (and mechanics and others for that matter)
> we should really stop giving free advice and training to these robots
People routinely freely give advice and teach students, friends, potential competitors, actual competitors, etc on this same forum. Robots? Many also advocate for immigration and outsourcing, presumably because they make the calculus that it is net beneficial in some scenarios. People on this forum contribute to an entire ecosystem of free software, on top of which two kids can and have built $100 billion companies that utilize all such technology freely and without cost. Let's ban it all?
Sure, I totally get if you want to make an individual choice for yourself to keep a secret sauce, not share your code, put stuff behind paywall. That is not the tone and the message here. There is some deep animosity advocating for everyone shutting down their pipes to AI as if some malevolent thing, similar to how Ted Kaczynski saw technology at large.
So this year SotA models have gotten gold at IMO, IoI, ICPC and beat 9/10 humans in that atcoder thing that tested optimisation problems. Yet the most reposted headlines and rethoric is "wall this", "stangation that", "model regression", "winter", "bubble", doom etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you say that they are easier? Are there more people who manages to solve a problem from ICPC than from IOI? How do you compare those? There were at least 2 very simple problems in IOI this year. I haven't read the ICPC problem set, and perhaps there are some low-hanging fruits, but I highly doubt it.
Because I'm a ICPC medalist (not this year though) but not a IOI medalist. Another evidence is that you only have 5 hours to solve 3 problems in IOI, but you need to solve 10+ problems in ICPC. It's impossible to have all 10+ problems to at IOI level in ICPC.
Isn't getting a medal a function of your ranking, not score, in both cases? If so, that does not prove much about the difficulty of either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I say 10 times cheaper, I mean when comparing models of the same capabilities. The kind of performance you get now for a 200$ subscription, a year ago probably would have costed 2000$.
I understand what you're saying. However I'm not sure it's that germane when we're talking about whether or not the current $200 subscription fee is actually delivering value for money, or whether AI giants are manipulating performance to gain marketing points.
“The fact is most ordinary mortals never get access to a fraction of that kind of power”