[ALLTaken]

[flagged]

[Aurornis]

> I think OpenAI participating is nothing but a publicity stunt and wholly unfair and disrespectful against Human participants. It should be allowed for AI models to participate, but it should not be ranked equally,

OpenAI did not participate in the actual competition nor were they taking spots away from humans. OpenAI just gave the problems to their AI under the same time limit and conditions (no external tool use)

> nor put any engineers under duress of having to pull all-nighters.

Under duress? At a company like this, all of the people working on this project are there because they want to be and they’re compensated millions.

[jsnell]

As far as I can tell, OpenAI didn't participate, and isn't claiming they participated. Note the fairly precise phrasing of "gold medal-level performance": they claim to have shown performance sufficient for a gold, not that they won one.

[esperent]

> they claim to have shown performance sufficient for a gold

This sounds very like Ferrari claiming that their cars can drive fast enough to get gold in the Olympic games 100 meter sprint.

[aubanel]

- AI competing is "wholly unfair"

- "[AI is] far away from being substantially being better than MCTs"

^ pick only one

[yobbo]

Running MCTS over algorithms is the part that might be considered unfair if used in competition with humans.

[pclmulqdq]

In a general sense, cheating and losing are not mutually exclusive.

[stingraycharles]

Yeah it’s a completely fair playing field, it’s completely obvious that AI should be able to compete with humans in the same way that robotics and computers can compete with humanity (and are better suited for many tasks).

Whether or not they’re far away from being better than humans is up to debate, but the entire point of these types of benchmarks it to compare them to humans.