Gemini with Deep Think achieves gold-medal standard at the IMO • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by SirMaster » Mon, Jul 21, 2025, 6:23 PM UTC

nashashmi wrote: post #54

thewebguyd wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Microsoft continuing to prove that the hardest problem in programming is naming things.

There are only so many words in the modern English language to hint at "next upgrade": pro, plus, ultra, new, advanced, magna, X, Z, and Ultimate. Even fewer words to explain miniaturized: mini, lite, and zero. And marketers are trying to seesaw on known words without creating new ones to explain new tech. This is why we have Bard and Gemini and Chat and Copilot. Taking a step back, it is overused exaggeration to the…

Good thing we have a system called numbers that can easily designate an infinite range of greater and greater things.

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

#82

Post by pfortuny » Mon, Jul 21, 2025, 6:23 PM UTC

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…

They can train it n “Crux Mathematicorum” and similar journals, which are collections of “interesting” problems and their solutions.

https://cms.math.ca/publications/crux

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

#83

Post by ml-anon » Mon, Jul 21, 2025, 6:23 PM UTC

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

This is weasily bullshit from Brown.

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

#84

Post by nomad_horse » Mon, Jul 21, 2025, 6:23 PM UTC

tshadley wrote: post #78

nomad_horse wrote: post #7

Do I understand it correctly that OpenAI self-proclaimed that they got their gold, without the official IMO judges grading their solutions?

Yes, OpenAI: https://x.com/alexwei_/status/1946477754372985146 > 6/N In our evaluation, the model solved 5 of the 6 problems on the 2025 IMO. For each problem, three former IMO medalists independently graded the model’s submitted proof, with scores finalized after unanimous consensus. The model earned 35/42 points in total, enough for gold! That means Google Deepmind is the first OFFICIAL IMO Gold. https://x.com/demi…

Do you know if OpenAI used the same grading criteria as official judges?

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

#85

Post by modeless » Mon, Jul 21, 2025, 6:24 PM UTC

rfurmani wrote: post #63

modeless wrote: post #45

> 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…

Sounds like it did not: > This year, our advanced Gemini model operated end-to-end in natural language, producing rigorous mathematical proofs directly from the official problem descriptions – all within the 4.5-hour competition time limit

Yes, that quote is contained in my comment. But I don't think it unambiguously excludes tool use in the internal chain of thought.

I don't think tool use would detract from the achievement, necessarily. I'm just interested to know.

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

#86

Post by square_usual » Mon, Jul 21, 2025, 6:25 PM UTC

erichocean wrote: post #57

lvl155 wrote: post #8

Seems OpenAI knew this is forthcoming so they front ran the news? I was really high on Gemini 2.5 Pro after release but I kept going back to o3 for anything I cared about.

I regularly have the opposite experience: o3 is almost unusable, and Gemini 2.5 Pro is reliably great. Claude Opus 4 is a close second. o3 is so bad it makes me wonder if I'm being served a different model? My o3 responses are so truncated and simplified as to be useless. Maybe my problems aren't a good fit, but whatever it is: o3 output isn't useful.

Are you using o3 on the official ChatGPT app or via API? I use it on the app and it performs very well, it's my go-to model for general purpose LLM use.

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

#87

Post by simonw » Mon, Jul 21, 2025, 6:26 PM UTC

rfurmani wrote: post #63

modeless wrote: post #45

> 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…

Sounds like it did not: > This year, our advanced Gemini model operated end-to-end in natural language, producing rigorous mathematical proofs directly from the official problem descriptions – all within the 4.5-hour competition time limit

I interpreted that bit as meaning they did not manually alter the problem statement before feeding it to the model - they gave it the exact problem text issued by IMO.

It is not clear to me from that paragraph if the model was allowed to call tools on its own or not.

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

#88

Post by ml-anon » Mon, Jul 21, 2025, 6:27 PM UTC

sherburt3 wrote: post #50

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.

Not only, by not officially entering they had no obligation to announce their result so if they didn't achieve a gold medal score they presumably wouldn't have made any announcement and no-one would have been the wiser.

This cowardly bullshit followed by the grandstanding on Twitter is high-school bully behaviour.

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

#89

Post by simonw » Mon, Jul 21, 2025, 6:27 PM UTC

brokensegue wrote: post #74

liuliu wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/gemini/IMO_202...

i saw that but it doesn't answer my question since it doesn't have associated marks? i'm not about to check their answer to a question i can't answer

That PDF lists solutions for problems 1 through 5 but does not mention problem 6 at all.

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

#90

Post by akomtu » Mon, Jul 21, 2025, 6:27 PM UTC

Those who keep their identity in their intelligence are heading into the rough seas once the proto-AI becomes real-AI in the coming years. What's the value of your smart thoughts if AI on your smartwatch can do it better, faster and cheaper?

Also, how is AI going to change a society ruled by competitiveness, where the winner takes all? You may not want to replace your thinking with AI, but your colleagues will. Their smartwatches or smartglasses will outcompete you with ease and your boss will tell you one day that the company doesn't need you anymore.

Think of it again. Today advertisers fight each other with their ad budgets: those who spend more, get more attention and win. Tomorrow everyone will need a monthly subscription to AI for it will be the price of staying competitive, relevant and employed.