> 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.
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.
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.
>>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).
Yeah same way computers and robots should be able to win World Chess Championship, 100m dash and Wimbledon.
>>but the entire point of these types of benchmarks it to compare them to humans
The entire point of the competition is to fight against participants who are similar to you, have similar capabilities and go through similar struggles.
If you want bot vs human competitions - great - organize it yourself instead of hijacking well established competitions out there.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Not at all
It's more like a chess engine claiming master level performance (back when that was an achievement)
- AI competing is "wholly unfair"
- "[AI is] far away from being substantially being better than MCTs"
^ pick only one
Running MCTS over algorithms is the part that might be considered unfair if used in competition with humans.
Humans should be allowed to compete in groups of arbitrary size. This would also be a demonstration of excellent teamwork under time pressure.
In a general sense, cheating and losing are not mutually exclusive.
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.
>>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).
Yeah same way computers and robots should be able to win World Chess Championship, 100m dash and Wimbledon.
>>but the entire point of these types of benchmarks it to compare them to humans
The entire point of the competition is to fight against participants who are similar to you, have similar capabilities and go through similar struggles. If you want bot vs human competitions - great - organize it yourself instead of hijacking well established competitions out there.